Oral
Answers to
Questions

Science, Innovation and Technology

The Secretary of State was asked—

Artificial Intelligence

Owen Thompson: Whether she plans to bring forward legislative proposals to regulate the use of artificial intelligence.

Drew Hendry: Whether she plans to bring forward legislative proposals to regulate the use of artificial intelligence.

Marion Fellows: Whether she plans to bring forward legislative proposals to regulate the use of artificial intelligence.

Chloe Smith: Our White Paper set out how we will regulate AI through a flexible framework underpinned by five principles. This proportionate and adaptable approach has been welcomed by British business. It includes new monitoring functions allowing us to update our approach in response to a rapidly evolving technology. The Government will come back with proposals in the autumn following the White Paper consultation.

Owen Thompson: AI has been used by public authorities in a wide range of contexts that affect individual rights, from facial recognition technology used by police to the system used by the Department for Work and Pensions to investigate benefits claimants. Does the Secretary of State agree that public trust in the state of AI is essential and that any changes to the law will require public support and, therefore, greater consultation to ensure that that trust is not undermined?

Chloe Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a thoughtful point. He is right that we need a comprehensive public debate on many of these points. He named some risks that concern him. I would marry those with consideration about opportunities. For example, my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions are also looking at how the technology can help with job matching and ensuring that people have information about the job market. I look forward to further conversations, as he said, as we go forward with this critical technology.

Drew Hendry: Following calls from the SNP, the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), agreed that human rights must be at the forefront of AI diplomacy. Will the new UK laws on AI protect people by outlawing any collaboration or research with nations that seek to abuse human rights through, for example, facial recognition or social credit systems?

Chloe Smith: The hon. Gentleman also makes a thoughtful point, which is an important consideration in all our diplomacy and the work that my colleagues in the Foreign Office take forward. Specifically on AI technology, domestically we have set out our proposals in our White Paper, which as we have said will evolve over time, and internationally we are clear that we see a leadership opportunity for the United Kingdom, because we are already a global leader in this technology and care passionately about ensuring its safe and responsible deployment.

Marion Fellows: Researchers at Robust Intelligence recently discovered that AI could be trained to bypass its in-built restrictions and privacy protections within hours of use. Despite growing concerns about the impact of AI, the Government are expanding the scope of automated decision making as part of their Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill. Can the public have confidence that sensitive personal data will be protected as the Government’s use of AI grows?

Chloe Smith: The short answer is yes. That is because, first, the legislation that the hon. Lady mentioned focuses on doing that. In addition, in our White Paper we set out the principles on which we intend to take advantage of AI, which ensure that we have safety, transparency, explainability, fairness, accountability and governance, and contestability and redress. Those are all vital, as I know she will agree, and there is much work ahead  of us.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.

Greg Clark: I congratulate the Secretary of State on her sure-footed discharge of her responsibilities over the past few weeks, which I think end today.
In the White Paper, there is a commitment that
“when parliamentary time allows…we will…strengthen and clarify regulators’ mandates by introducing a new duty requiring them to have due regard to the principles”
of the White Paper. Given the blistering pace of AI deployment and the fact that the forthcoming King’s Speech will be the last opportunity until 2025, will the Government confirm that they will bring forward that legislation in the next Session?

Chloe Smith: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his kind words about me. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) will return later this week. It has been a privilege to help her by conducting her maternity cover at the highest levels.
My right hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee is correct that we set out that plan in our White Paper. We said that we anticipate introducing a statutory duty on regulators
“requiring them to have due regard to the principles”,
which I mentioned in my previous answer. He will also know that I cannot commit to the contents of the King’s Speech, but what I have already said this morning is that the Government will be returning to the House with a full update on the conclusion of the consultation on the White Paper.

Alun Cairns: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s leadership in this policy area. The conference in the autumn will give the Government an opportunity to lay out their plans for working with international partners. Does she agree that AI cannot be blocked or stopped, and therefore an open, pragmatic approach needs to be shown to harness the benefits of AI for the economy and society in general?

Chloe Smith: My right hon. Friend is correct. That is what we have laid out in our approach so far. As the Prime Minister said, we intend to lead overseas and domestically, lead the charge of that opportunity in our public services and ensure that our pro-innovation approach enables the benefits of this technology to be captured sooner across the economy.

Michael Fabricant: Was my right hon. Friend reassured by the comments made by Nick Clegg this morning, while representing Meta, that AI at present is not capable of individual thought as such, but goes through a massive trawl very quickly of existing data?

Chloe Smith: We are drawing on the benefit of a range of experts in our work. In particular, I thank Ian Hogarth and those who have stepped up to form our Foundation Models Taskforce, which is helping us by looking extremely closely at the safety requirements for those models at the very frontier. There will be more updates on that work as time goes on.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Alex Davies-Jones: The Secretary of State will surely have read the many reports of bad actors using AI technology to create voice clones and, ultimately, scam victims out of money over the phone. For as little as 76p a month, a subscription to one of those websites can be yours, Mr Speaker. Computer security company McAfee recently found that one in four people had experienced a voice scam or knew someone who had. What exactly is the Secretary of State doing right now to prevent and, ultimately, protect people from those voice scams and deepfakes?

Chloe Smith: The shadow Minister raises a good point, which we should all examine. We have the correct answers, through the approach we have set out in our White Paper using our world-class regulators, the approach we are working on in this House and the other place on the Online Safety Bill, and existing crimes and offences. Right now, my officials are working with Ofcom to ensure it is ready for the duties that will come to it  through the Online Safety Bill, and that it has the tools to ensure that scams, fraud and other offences are properly addressed.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

Alan Brown: The Secretary of State said that my colleagues had made thoughtful points about human rights concerns, control of personal data and public trust, but we need actual action and commitment from the Government. In contrast, the EU is moving to become the first regulator in the world to legislate for a specific AI Act, to ensure that AI works for people as well as business and Government. Will she finally commit to the UK following suit and legislating for AI, to ensure that the UK does not become a haven for the worst possible applications of what should be beneficial technology?

Chloe Smith: The hon. Gentleman is telling the wrong story. The UK Government are acting comprehensively. The framework we set out in our White Paper applies across the UK. The work we are setting out with our global summit leads the way internationally. That approach is proportionate and flexible, and has been welcomed by business across the UK. In addition, the principles I have already named and the work of my colleagues across Government on human rights and other aspects ensure that our citizens can enjoy the safe and responsible use of this technology. I look forward to working with anyone in this House who has a thoughtful approach to take to that.

Decarbonisation Technologies

Joanna Cherry: What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of UK Research and Innovation funding for decarbon-isation technologies.

George Freeman: We can all be proud that this country is leading the global charge on net zero. As part of our historic uplift in R&D expenditure to £20 billion a year—£52 billion over the consolidated spending review period—UK Research and Innovation is investing in £800 million annually on research and innovation in net zero, and £210 million through the industrial decarbon-isation fund. I am delighted that Scotland is in the vanguard, with more than 1,400 projects funded, in receipt of £1.3 billion. The Faraday battery challenge investment of £540 million appears to be working, with the good news today of Tata’s multibillion investment in a £4 billion gigafactory.

Joanna Cherry: I am delighted to hear the Minister acknowledge that Scotland is in the vanguard of research in this area. The Industrial Decarbonisation Research and Innovation Centre at Heriot-Watt University in my constituency has become a focal point of collaboration and innovation for UK industrial clusters, but the excellent progress that it is making is at risk owing to a funding gap. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the vital work being done at Heriot-Watt University, and how the Government can support it better in its efforts to help them to reach their industrial decarbonisation targets?

George Freeman: Brevity, Mr Speaker: yes, with pleasure.

Broadband: Rural Wales

Rob Roberts: If she will take steps to improve rural connectivity in (a) Delyn constituency, (b) north Wales and (c) Wales.

John Whittingdale: Under Project Gigabit, we are launching procurements across Wales and the rest of the UK to deliver gigabit-capable broadband to rural and remote premises not included in suppliers’ commercial plans. We are planning to launch a regional procurement for north Wales by the end of the year, which will include premises in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

Rob Roberts: The towns of Flint and Holywell in my constituency have 90% and 83% full-fibre connectivity respectively, but the exchange in Mold has only 10%, and Northop only 2.6%. The Mold exchange in particular serves many of the smaller villages and also the farming community, which is vital to my constituency. What more can the Minister do to improve connectivity in these rural areas so that the vital farming sector does not grind to a halt in places such as Delyn?

John Whittingdale: My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of digital connectivity to rural communities and businesses. We are pressing ahead apace with Project gigabit, and have appointed our hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) as rural connectivity champion. At present, more than 98% of premises in Delyn have access to superfast broadband, while 62% have a gigabit-capable network, and our Project Gigabit procurements are intended to ensure that communities such as Northop and Mold do not miss out on gigabit-capable connection.

Horizon Europe

Janet Daby: What recent progress she has made on securing the UK’s association with Horizon Europe.

Gerald Jones: What recent progress she has made on securing the UK’s association with Horizon Europe.

Wera Hobhouse: What her planned timescale is for negotiating the UK’s association to Horizon Europe.

Chloe Smith: We are moving forward with discussions on the UK’s involvement in Horizon Europe, and we hope they will be successful. Association is our preference. The talks are continuing constructively, but we have not yet agreed a deal. We want to reach a resolution as quickly as possible to give the industry certainty. We have also set out our bold alternative, Pioneer, which we are ready to implement if necessary.

Janet Daby: Owing to the Government’s delay in associating with Horizon Europe, the UK has lost out on “hosting” nearly 400 high-end European Research Council grants. Furthermore, nearly 50 grant winners have left the country altogether. Scientists including Brian Cox and Sir Paul Nurse are warning that the Government’s failure to act is damaging Britain’s science base. Is the Secretary of State concerned about these failings?

Chloe Smith: Unfortunately it is the European Union that has delayed for more than two years, and that has caused serious and lasting damage to the UK’s participation. What we need to do is ensure that we can get the right deal for UK researchers, UK businesses and UK taxpayers. That that is what we are working to do, and we are confident that the talks are proceeding constructively. It is much more important to get the right deal than to get a fast deal.

Gerald Jones: The Government made a manifesto promise to associate with Horizon Europe, but it is now 132 weeks since they took our country out of the world’s biggest science fund. It is shocking but not surprising that they have broken yet another promise. Government inaction has seriously damaged our international science pedigree. How much longer will our world-leading scientists, researchers and universities—who have suffered so much already—be forced to wait because this Government cannot keep their promises?

Chloe Smith: We have continued to support the sector with more than £1.5 billion of the Horizon guarantee. We have done that to ensure that there is no loss of funding for the UK science sector. I think it far more important to speak directly to researchers, businesses and taxpayers about our commitment to getting the right deal than to engage in party politics here.

Wera Hobhouse: We in Bath have two fantastic universities, the University of Bath and Bath Spa University. Their leaders continue to worry about losing talent from Europe, and the Government have worsened the position by proposing a 66% increase in visa fees. Will the Secretary of State explain what that increase will mean for UK science, and how it accords with the Government’s stated ambition to bring the best and brightest to this country?

Chloe Smith: We continue to run a range of successful talent programmes that bring the best and the brightest to universities and indeed to those in the hon. Lady’s constituency. I welcome her representing them here today. The point is that we have to get the right deal on Horizon, as I have laid out, and we also have to strike a balance with the needs of policy across Government. That is what she has heard from me and other Ministers at this Dispatch Box, and that is how we will ensure that we get the right deal for Britain, both in terms of talent and of science programmes.

Oliver Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very much in Europe’s interests for us to be part of the Horizon programme, because we have some of the strongest academic institutions in Europe, and in a way it undermines the science base of Europe if we are not in there? Does she also recognise that, although there was great enthusiasm at the recent meeting of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly for us to join again, there was also a feeling that it could surely be done a little more quickly?

Chloe Smith: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s insight into this issue. As I have already said, we are working consistently and steadily to get the right deal for UK science, by which we mean British researchers as well as taxpayers and businesses. That is what we are doing; the talks are proceeding and I look forward to the House being able to have an update very soon.

Saqib Bhatti: I would like to put on record my respect for the Secretary of State and her excellent stewardship of her portfolio.
I would like us to join Horizon Europe, but is it not right that we should get the right deal for our UK scientists, our UK businesses and our UK taxpayers, and that any commentary before a deal is done will only undermine our science industry and not be helpful in the slightest?

Chloe Smith: That is exactly right, and it is right for two reasons. The first is that billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money are at stake and we need to be responsible stewards of that money. That is why we are focused on getting the right deal. The second point is that my Department exists to forward and further the frontier of science in this country and to make sure that we stay a science and technology superpower. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are in the middle of answers to a question. I call Vicky Ford.

Vicky Ford: Teledyne e2v is the world leader in space imaging. It provides the eyes to NASA, the European space programme and Copernicus. Can my great and right hon. Friend make sure that our conversations about Horizon also include Copernicus? Otherwise, the EU is going to be building Earth observation satellites that cannot see the Earth.

Chloe Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s interest in this area, and she is absolutely right to say that we have enormous opportunity in our space sector, across a range of aspects. I know that the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), would like to discuss her constituency interest further with her. I can also assure the House that there will be further updates coming soon on the UK Government’s space strategy.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Chi Onwurah: In Vilnius, the Prime Minister had the chance to conclude a deal allowing our scientists to participate in the world’s biggest international science programme, driving innovation and sustainable growth. He did not take it, again, so the Horizon saga drags on, month after month, year after year. Are we in or are we out? The Science Minister is not in the negotiations, and the chief scientist is not in the negotiations. It is all about the Prime Minister. Does the Secretary of State understand that while the Prime Minister is dithering, our science base is withering?

Chloe Smith: Today is quite possibly my last opportunity at the Dispatch Box. I first served from these Government Benches in May 2010, and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) first shadowed me 10 years ago. I know that she has a very fine mind and is a dedicated public servant. However, on this she is wrong. Labour Front Benchers may not know from one day to the next what their policy is, but we have been consistent on this point and we are working hard to get the correct deal for UK taxpayers and UK science.

Topical Questions

Theresa Villiers: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Chloe Smith: Since I last updated the House, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure has announced £380 million of funding to bring the fastest internet speeds to some of our most rural communities. The Government’s Office for Life Sciences has agreed a landmark deal with BioNTech that will see up to 10,000 cancer patients benefit from potentially life-saving treatment. Today, my Department has launched a call for evidence on engineering biology.

Theresa Villiers: What action are the Government taking to deliver regulatory reform and business investment in the biosciences sector, so that it can play its part in boosting economic growth and delivering great job opportunities for people across the country?

Chloe Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s expertise in this area, and I thank the team that works with me on this subject, including my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation, who has been central in leading how we will reform our regulatory landscape on life sciences. I point my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) to the Chancellor’s announcements, both at the Budget and still to come, on how we will continue to support our life sciences and biosciences sectors, which are essential to the UK economy.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Lucy Powell: I thank the Secretary of State for her time covering this role, notwithstanding her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who asked a very important question.
Today’s inflation figures confirm that prices continue to rise. Broadband customers are dealing with inflation-busting price hikes, as a direct result of the Government’s choices. They lifted the cap on wholesale costs, which has caused retail prices to rise. Will the Secretary of State apologise to hard-pressed families and tackle the cost of living crisis for broadband customers?

John Whittingdale: We recognise that households are having a very difficult time due to the cost of living, which is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has met the regulators to press them to do more to help. We have agreement that social tariffs are now available to all those in receipt of universal credit and other benefits. At the same time, Ofcom has agreed with providers that anybody who wishes to switch to a cheaper tariff can do so without charge.

Edward Leigh: There can be few more exciting and innovative projects for any constituency than a spaceport to launch satellites into space. We had a done deal to build one on the runway at RAF Scampton, before the Home Office marched in and stymied the whole project. Will the Minister please lobby the Home Office to try to get the spaceport back? Why would the Home Office want a runway, or is there a darker purpose behind this?

George Freeman: My right hon. Friend has raised this before, and I will happily speak to him about it and support that space cluster. The UK is poised to lead Europe in the launch of low Earth orbit satellites over the coming decade, and we are building launchpads around the country for that very purpose.

Drew Hendry: The Royal Society’s 2021 visa costs analysis shows that researchers entering the UK via the global talent scheme had to pay six times more than they would have paid under similar international science schemes. Does the Minister acknowledge the cost of Brexit in our failure to attract world-leading researchers and skilled workers?

Chloe Smith: The hon. Gentleman is on his own mission. He fails to see the strength of the UK science and technology sector, and he fails to see that it will be better for Scotland’s businesses, scientists and citizens to continue to be part of that thriving sector. That is what we are doing in making sure the United Kingdom is a science and technology superpower.

Michael Fabricant: Indeed, we have world-class universities in the west midlands. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to support regional innovation clusters?

George Freeman: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are investing heavily in regional innovation clusters all around this country. We have three: one in Manchester, one in Glasgow and one in the west midlands, where the excellent Mayor, Andy Street, is driving a genuine innovation economy.

Liz Twist: Almost one in two properties in my constituency, and less than one in five in rural areas, do not have access to gigabit broadband. They do not even have superfast connections. The Department must help properties get connected where profit incentives are low. Will the Minister provide an update on the gigabit voucher scheme and the total value of vouchers claimed this year?

John Whittingdale: Currently, more than 76% of premises have access to gigabit-capable broadband and we are on track to meet our target of 85% coverage by 2025. However, the hon. Lady raises a good point about the take-up of social tariffs under the scheme and we want to see that happen much more. We are determined to press ahead with Project Gigabit to achieve our target of universal coverage by 2030.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Sajid Javid: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 July.

Rishi Sunak: The ban on LGBT people serving in our military until the year 2000 was an appalling failure of the British state—it was decades   behind the law of this land. As today’s report makes clear, in that period many endured the most horrific sexual abuse and violence, homophobic bullying and harassment, all while bravely serving this country. Today, on behalf of the British state, I apologise, and I hope that all those affected will be able to feel proud parts of the veteran community, which has done so much to keep our country safe.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Sajid Javid: May I associate myself with the remarks the Prime Minister just made? In the UK, sadly, every 90 minutes someone takes their own life. Indeed, for men under the age of 50 and for women under the age of 35, this is now the biggest killer. When I was the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, I met many brave families and campaigners, and I committed to them that the Government would publish a comprehensive, cross-departmental suicide prevention strategy. That was more than a year ago and still there is no strategy. I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister cares as deeply about this issue as I do; we have discussed it many times. Will he please commit his Government to publishing the strategy within days of Parliament’s return from the summer recess?

Rishi Sunak: When someone takes their own life, the effect on their family and friends is devastating. I know that the loss of my right hon. Friend’s own brother was an enormous source of pain for him. I want to reassure him that we are actively addressing suicide rates, through our national suicide prevention strategy, backed by funding, and, in particular, by rolling out 100 suicide prevention voluntary community and social enterprises. I can tell him that we will publish the new updated national suicide prevention strategy later this year.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Keir Starmer: Labour in government was proud to repeal the ban on LGBT+ people serving in our armed forces, and today we strongly welcome this apology from the Prime Minister as a recognition of their historic mistreatment. My constituent Ken Wright was a proud RAF serviceman who was forced to leave the job he loved simply because he was gay. I am delighted that he is here today to witness this apology. Although we cannot right the wrongs of the past, the Government should now act on the recommendations of the Etherton review to fix the lives broken by the ban—it is what LGBT+ veterans deserve.
I also know that the whole House will want to send our very best wishes to the Lionesses as they start their World cup campaign this Saturday. Let us hope they continue the brilliant success they had in the Euros.
When the Prime Minister took office nine months ago, the NHS waiting list had 7.2 million people on it. What is the number today?

Rishi Sunak: The reason that NHS waiting lists are higher today than they were then, after actually being stable for the first few months as we put in place new initiatives, is very simple: because the NHS has been disrupted by industrial action. We have put very clear plans in place to bring down waiting lists in urgent  and emergency care, primary care, ambulances, out-patient and elective. Those plans were working and will continue to work, but we do need to end the industrial action. So I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he does care about bringing the waiting lists down, does he agree with me that consultants and junior doctors should accept the pay deal that the Government offered?

Keir Starmer: Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The Prime Minister likes to get away early, but the longer Members stop me getting on with the questions, the longer I am going to keep him here, so it is up to them.

Keir Starmer: I am sure the whole House is pleased that the Prime Minister has graced us with his presence today, but we do not get any more answers when he is here than when he is not. He knows the answer: 7-point million people are currently on the waiting lists. That is the highest it has ever been. It means that since he set foot into Downing Street, 260,000 people have been waiting in daily agony for things like hip and knee replacements, while he boasts. Has he figured out why, after nine months, dozens of gimmicks and umpteen broken promises, his Government are failing more patients than ever before?

Rishi Sunak: Mr Speaker, again, I do not think we heard an answer to the question, so— [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I also do not want Opposition Members holding up proceedings.

Rishi Sunak: It is very simple. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman actually looked at what was happening, he would see that earlier this year our plans were beginning to work: ambulance waiting times down, from an hour and a half over Christmas to around half an hour; virtually eliminating the number of people waiting one and half years for treatment; making huge progress on GP access. All those things—all those plans we put in place, all the funding, all the extra ambulances, the extra discharges—are starting to make a difference, but all are held up by one very simple fact: industrial action in the NHS. Again, I will give him a second chance: if he really wants to get people the healthcare they want, will he agree with me that those doctors should accept the recommendations of the independent pay review body? [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. This would be a bad time to get thrown out—it is six weeks, so think long and hard. I just say to the Prime Minister: this is Prime Minister’s questions, not Opposition questions.

Keir Starmer: Mr Speaker, I think that, given his time away, the Prime Minister has slightly forgotten how this works. He talks about his NHS staffing plan, but he doesn’t need to lecture me—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. This might be the last Prime Minister’s questions before recess, but let me just say to somebody that if they really want to go early, it will be very tempting to ensure that happens, so they should think long and hard beforehand.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister talks about his plans, but he does not need to lecture me on that. On the NHS staffing plan, he nicked it from Labour. It is the same old story: they mess up the NHS and look to Labour to fix it. Come the election, the country will be doing the same. The difference is that, unlike us, he has not said how he would pay for his workforce plan. Now is his chance. Where is the money coming from?

Rishi Sunak: Not only is the NHS long-term workforce plan fully funded, but it was welcomed by not one, not two, but 43 different NHS stakeholders. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about our plans and whether they are making a difference, so let us just look at urgent and emergency care. Our plans mean that we will put 800 more ambulances on the road, and there will be 5,000 more beds, faster discharges and more community care. That is why the Royal College of Emergency Medicine described it as “significant” and said that it “would undoubtedly improve conditions”. That is why we have seen A&E waiting times in England the best in two years, while—the Opposition will not like this—the NHS has the worst waiting times in the country in Wales.

Keir Starmer: When the Prime Minister said that the workforce plan was fully costed, I have never seen the Chancellor look more bewildered. It is less than a year since his party crashed the economy with its unfunded spending commitments, and he has not learned a thing. Let me ask this another way: is his uncosted spending coming from more tax rises, more cuts, or is it just the latest promise to fall from the Tories’ magic money tree?

Rishi Sunak: As I and the Chancellor set out, the plan is fully funded—the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see that at the autumn statement. I am pleased that he is now interested in fiscal responsibility, because that is very welcome. There is an opportunity for us to make sure that this is true conviction. We have just had, in the past week, the recommendations of independent pay review bodies, including for the NHS. I believed that the right thing to do was to accept those independent recommendations, but that involves taking difficult and responsible decisions to deliver those pay rises without fuelling borrowing, inflation, taxes and debt. But, yet again, on this crucial issue, while his MPs are back on the picket lines, he simply refuses to take a position. It is the same old story. He should stop taking inspiration from his friends outside and unglue himself from the fence. [Hon. Members: “More!”]

Lindsay Hoyle: You want some more? Who wants to lead the exit?

Keir Starmer: In that burst of nonsense, what we did not hear was a single word about how the Prime Minister will pay for it. Labour’s NHS workforce plan is fully funded by scrapping the non-dom status that he so adores. You know the one, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think that one or two of you have asked to catch my eye. You are not going about it in the right way.

Keir Starmer: Labour’s workforce plan is fully funded by scrapping the non-dom status that the Prime Minister so adores. You know the one, Mr Speaker: the “non-dom tax thing”, as he calls it, that allows some of the  wealthiest people in the country to avoid paying tax here. Is that loophole so important to him that he would rather have billions in unfunded promises than simply make billionaires pay what they owe?

Rishi Sunak: That is the same policy that has paid, I think, for five different things at this point. Everybody knows that I am a fan of doing maths to 18, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a very strong case for doing maths all the way to 61. When it comes to the substance of the plan, it is important that we address this. I am aware—I will say this—that he did set out some proposals to train more staff. The problem is that that is all he did. Our plan is much more comprehensive and much more impactful. Not only will we train more staff—[Interruption.] This is important substance. I acknowledge that the Labour party did set out some plans to train more, but that is not enough. You also have to set out plans to retain more NHS staff, as we did, and, crucially, you also have to set out plans for how you reform the NHS, so that you can have a more productive NHS. That is the difference between us: he is only ever focused on the superficial headline, while we are getting on with the actual reform.

Keir Starmer: If the Prime Minister is so good at maths, he will know that I am 60, not 61. I do not know whether he has found time during the recent by-elections to visit Hillingdon Hospital, where the wards have had to close, staff are working in appalling conditions and patient safety is at risk, and that is simply a snapshot of the wider problem. This week, the National Audit Office set out in detail what everyone already knows: the Government’s hospital programme has, shall we say, some gaps in it. So can the Prime Minister confirm that, apart from the fact that there are not 40 of them, that most of them are not new, and that many of them are not even hospitals, everything is going fine with the 40 new hospitals?

Rishi Sunak: Not only are we going to deliver on our manifesto commitment to build 40 new hospitals across the country by 2030, we are not stopping there; we are also delivering 100 hospital upgrades across the country, and crucially more than 100 new community diagnostic centres to speed up treatment for people, including in the constituency of the deputy Leader of the Opposition, and the constituencies of the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, the shadow Energy Secretary, the shadow Justice Secretary and the shadow Attorney General. That is how committed we are.
Let me end on this. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned Hillingdon Hospital in Uxbridge. I want to help the people of this country. I want to make sure that not only can they get to work but they get the care that they need. Why on earth does he want to charge them £12.50 every time they visit their GP and hospital?

Nigel Mills: There was welcome news this morning of inflation falling by more than expected. Businesses in my constituency are trying to plan their pricing for next January and are struggling because of the proposals to introduce the extended producer responsibility. They do not yet have the information on how much it will cost or how it will work. Will the Prime Minister look at pausing and resetting that programme, so that in January we do not  see price rises in our supermarkets without the consequent reduction in packaging and increase in recycling that we all want to see?

Rishi Sunak: This is something that has been raised with me by those in the industry. We are committed to protecting the environment and delivering on our net zero targets, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is continuing to engage closely with manufacturers, retailers and packaging companies on the precise design of the scheme. I know that Ministers will continue to keep this House and my hon. Friend updated.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the leader of the SNP.

Stephen Flynn: The two-child benefit cap introduced by the Conservative party has left 250,000 children living in poverty. Does the Prime Minister take comfort in knowing that the heinous legacy of that policy will no longer be protected just by Conservative Members but by Labour Members too?

Rishi Sunak: I welcome the Labour leader’s new-found support for our policy, even though he previously committed to a different approach. What I would say to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), and indeed the Labour Front Bench, is that they do not have to worry too much given the Labour leader’s track record: he has never actually kept a promise that he has made.

Stephen Flynn: Voters in Scotland are used to child poverty under the Tories—they almost expect it—but they do not expect child poverty support from the Labour party. If we look very closely right now, there is a shiver running along the Labour Front Bench looking for a spine. [Interruption.] Does this not tell us something much bigger: that for children living in poverty in Scotland, Westminster offers them no real change and no real hope?

Rishi Sunak: The best route out of poverty is through work, and the best way to ensure that children do not grow up in poverty is to ensure that they do not grow up in a workless household. That is why we are focused on creating more jobs, with 200,000 more in Scotland since 2010 and hundreds of thousands fewer children across the United Kingdom growing up in a workless household. We will always continue to reduce child poverty. I do not want to see a single child grow up in poverty, and we will deliver that in every part of the UK, including in Scotland.

Shailesh Vara: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if Opposition Members are in favour of illegal economic migration, they should have the courage to say so, rather than claiming that young men in their 20s and 30s, arriving here from safe countries, are actually asylum seekers?

Rishi Sunak: My right hon. Friend is right that the Opposition do not have a plan to tackle illegal migration. We saw that just this last week, when I think they voted over 70 different times against our stop the boats Bill. That Bill will make it crystal clear that if you come here illegally, you will be detained and swiftly removed to a safe third country. That is the fair, compassionate and right way to deal with this problem, and that is what we believe in.

Caroline Lucas: It is exactly a year to the day since UK temperatures hit a deadly 40°C for the first time, with 3,000 excess deaths last summer. Yet businesses and the Prime Minister’s own climate advisers have said that his climate progress is worryingly slow. He likes to claim that the UK is decarbonising more quickly than the rest of the G7, but since the Paris agreement that is simply not true. He also likes to claim that it is not a top concern for the public, while recent polling shows that that is not true either. Experts, businesses and the public all want bolder climate action, but it is not even one of his top five priorities. Can he tell us why not?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Lady just makes a completely bizarre point. Because we moved quicker and faster than everyone else, she thinks that somehow that is something we should now not be proud of. It is right that other countries are catching up; it is inevitable that they will have to decarbonise faster now to make up for the fact that over the past two decades they have not followed our example. I am not going to take any lectures from her on this topic, because our track record is a good one. We have decarbonised faster than everyone else and right now we are making the right long-term decisions to make sure that we not only transition to net zero, but do so in a way that brings people along with us and creates jobs in the process.

Andrew Selous: Bedfordshire businesses now have apprentices on the factory floor, earning £48,000 a year on qualification, easily beating cost of living pressures. What more can we do to get schools to promote apprenticeships to pupils and parents, as our colleges and institutes of technology are great poverty-busting institutions?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One of the practical steps we are taking is to put all apprenticeships on to the UCAS system this autumn, which will make sure that they have parity of esteem in the classroom and increased information for parents and teachers. At the same time, as I announced earlier this week, we are clamping down on university courses that fail to deliver good outcomes. What we should be doing is providing young people with the best opportunities for them to get on in life, and he is absolutely right that that should include apprenticeships.

Diana R. Johnson: Why does the Prime Minister think that Sir Brian Langstaff, who chairs the public inquiry into infected blood, has reopened the hearings and summoned before him the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Leader of the House and the Paymaster General to answer questions next week?

Rishi Sunak: My thoughts remain with all those affected by this appalling tragedy. The infected blood scandal should never have happened, and that is why the public inquiry was set up by one of my predecessors. I have submitted written evidence to the inquiry and am due to give oral evidence shortly, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this time.

Greg Clark: Some 800,000 people work indirectly or directly in our car industry, which accounts for 10% of our country’s  exports. I strongly welcome the £4 billion investment by Tata Motors in a battery factory, and the jobs associated with it. Will my right hon. Friend build on that success and pursue a clear plan to get more gigafactories, including in the west midlands, so that we can capitalise on our lead in battery innovation and technology?

Rishi Sunak: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of today’s announcement. It is one of the largest-ever investments in the UK auto industry in this country’s history, with billions of pounds and thousands of jobs, and it is a massive vote of confidence in the UK economy.

Philippa Whitford: The NHS in England has just had its longest-ever junior doctors’ strike and consultants go on strike tomorrow for the first time in 50 years, yet so far Scotland has had no NHS strikes. That is not by chance; it is because our Health Secretary and First Minister have kept working with the British Medical Association to try to address the pay erosion faced by doctors since 2008. Workforce shortages are the biggest challenge facing healthcare, and the Prime Minister just mentioned the importance of staff retention. Does he really think that refusing even to talk to health unions will stop doctors leaving the NHS?

Rishi Sunak: We did talk to health unions, but we also respected the independent pay review body process, which is the right way to resolve these issues and means that a typical junior doctor will see a 9% pay rise as a result of this deal. Since the hon. Lady mentioned retention, earlier this year the Government delivered the BMA’s No. 1 ask, which was to remove the cap on pensions tax. That was specifically designed to retain senior doctors in the NHS. The Government have now done our bit, and I urge the unions, “Please get back to the hospitals and treat your patients.”

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Does my right hon. Friend share my unease that a bank that has the Government as its largest shareholder should close the account of a senior opposition politician? Will he use the Government’s shareholding to ensure that there is an inquiry into those circumstances, because the subject data access request makes it clear, or certainly indicates, that it is the political views of the person concerned that led to his cancellation? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, however much we may find them tiresome, members of the opposition deserve bank accounts?

Rishi Sunak: It would not be right if financial services were being denied to anyone exercising their right to lawful free speech. Our new Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 puts in place new measures to ensure that politically exposed persons are being treated in an appropriate and proportionate manner, and having consulted on the payments services regulations, we are in the process of cracking down on that practice by tightening the rules around account closures. But in the meantime, any individual can complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service, which has the power to direct a bank to reopen their account.

Naseem Shah: I know how it feels to be homeless, squatting from one place to another with your entire belongings in one single black bin liner. Hard-working families, including in Bradford West, are at risk of homelessness because of the Tory mortgage bombshell and the failure to legislate to protect renters. Apart from totally losing grip of the whole situation, what is the Prime Minister doing to stop half a million people becoming homeless?

Rishi Sunak: Actually, rough sleeping levels were about a third lower in 2022 compared with the peak in 2017. Since our landmark Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 came into force, more than 600,00 households have successfully had their homelessness prevented or relieved, and we are investing £2 billion over the next three years to continue to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping.

Mark Francois: The Prime Minister mentioned our armed forces. May I mention them again? We lost 457 personnel killed in Afghanistan, and several thousand suffered life-changing injuries. So I and some of my colleagues on the Defence Committee were absolutely stunned to see a video posted by our own Chairman lauding the Taliban’s governance of Afghanistan but not mentioning that they are still trying to identify and kill Afghan civilians who sided with NATO forces, nor the fact that they do not like girls to go to school. Can I make it plain that that was not in our name, and can I have the Prime Minister’s assurance that that silly and naive act was not in his name either?

Rishi Sunak: I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to our brave serving personnel and veterans, and I thank them for their service, as we touched on earlier. We have repeatedly called out, and will continue to repeatedly call out, the human rights abuses that we see around the world. He mentions rightly the prohibition on women being educated in Afghanistan, which is something that we have spoken about in the past. We will also continue to have dialogue with regimes. That does not mean that we consider those regimes to be legitimate or that we approve of their actions, but that is all part, as he will understand, of establishing normal diplomatic presence in countries where the situation allows. I will very happily look into the specific case that he raises.

Pete Wishart: It is not just the adoption of the disgusting two-child benefit cap; it is the endorsement of a hard Brexit, the tuition fees, the immigration. Does the Prime Minister not agree that there is now no real difference between the two main UK parties? Is it not time that we perhaps rearranged the furniture in this House, had them all on one big Bench and re-titled them the “This is what you get from the UK party”?

Rishi Sunak: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I will leave him and the Labour party to debate the finer points of policy between them. On the substance, because it is important, the track record demonstrates that we are making a difference and reducing child poverty. There are now 400,000 fewer children in poverty than there were in 2010, as a result of the  actions of this Government—notably, by moving their parents into work, because that has the single best benefit for those children. That is the right policy and it is one that we will continue to deliver.

Alicia Kearns: Conversion therapy is quackery packaged up by bigots seeking to promote their hate and to profit from it. On 19 January, a Minister promised at the Dispatch Box to bring forward a ban against conversion therapy and ensure that pre-legislative scrutiny was completed before the end of this parliamentary term. How does my right hon. Friend plan to continue that? May I also welcome his statement today and thank those LGBT veterans who are with us? We are so grateful for their service and we seek this ban also in their name.

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I agree with her that conversion therapy is an abhorrent practice, and we need to do everything we can to stamp it out wherever we see it. The Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), will continue to keep my hon. Friend and the House updated on her progress.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Prime Minister remember seven years ago, when he was a passionate supporter of leaving the European Union, along with his then best friend, Boris Johnson? Is he aware that Sir John Major now says, in every speech he makes, that that decision was catastrophic for the people of this country and living standards, as well as deeply damaging to our role, status and influence in the world?

Rishi Sunak: I would say gently to the hon. Gentleman that he made the central point at the beginning of his question: it was seven years ago, and we need to move forward. He talked about what has happened since then. Since we left the single market, this economy has grown faster than Germany, France and Italy. He also talked about our standing on the world stage. He obviously was not here for the statement on the NATO summit last week, but nobody can be in any doubt that the United Kingdom is highly respected on the world stage.

Lee Anderson: Just last week the Leader of the Opposition announced his new flagship policy—the two-child benefit cap. It is very popular on this side of the House, but it is not so popular on the other side. Can the Prime Minister tell the House when the Leader of the Opposition will jump off the bandwagon, be honest with the British public and tell them what he stands for?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is right. I welcome the Leader of the Opposition now supporting the Government’s policy, but I do not think anyone actually believes that he believes in what he says. That is the—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The Prime Minister need not worry, because he has no responsibility for the Opposition.

Neil Coyle: Every single Member of the House is required by law to confirm the true source of a donation before it is accepted or declared. Can the Prime Minister tell us  whether he followed all the rules all the time before he took £38,500 of free air travel on 28 April? If so, why does his story keep changing about who paid?

Rishi Sunak: All donations are declared in the normal way. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if there are administrative changes to that they are quickly corrected.

David Davis: To bring the Prime Minister back to the question asked, rightly, by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg), the opposition politician referred to is Nigel Farage, whose bank account was closed not because he was a PEP—a politically exposed person—or for commercial reasons, but because his views did not align with the values of Coutts bank: thinly veiled political discrimination and a vindictive, irresponsible and undemocratic action. In addition, Nat West also disclosed confidential details about Farage’s account to the BBC and lied about the commercial viability of his account, actions that should jeopardise its banking licence and should certainly worry Nat West’s 19 million other customers. The Prime Minister has told us what he will do in the future, but there are many other people in this circumstance. Will he require every bank with a British banking licence to inform the Treasury of all the accounts that they have shut down for non-commercial reasons in the last decade?

Rishi Sunak: I know that my right hon. Friend has spoken to the Chancellor about this issue, and that he will continue to have those conversations. In the short term, having consulted on the payment service  regulations, we intend to crack down on that practice by toughening the rules around account closures. In the meantime, the Financial Ombudsman Service is available for people to make complaints to, but I look forward to continuing the dialogue with my right hon. Friend, as does the Chancellor.

Carla Lockhart: As a father, the Prime Minister will know how precious children are. Adam Watson, aged nine, and Poppy Ogle, aged 10, from my constituency sadly lost their battle with childhood cancer just last year. Their homes are forever broken. Both families want to see a change in financial support for the 1,600 children diagnosed with cancer across the UK each year. Will the Prime Minister commit to meeting these families to listen to their stories, and to reviewing child disability living allowance payments so that they commence immediately on diagnosis of childhood cancer, whether or not the diagnosis is terminal? The three-month wait for support is just too long. Surely this Government can see fit to wrap their arms around these children and their families in their hour of need.

Rishi Sunak: I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I cannot imagine how difficult it is for families whose children are being treated for cancer, with everything that comes along with that. I will happily look into  the specific issue that she has mentioned and get back to her in all haste. She should know that she has my  total support for helping and supporting families  who are going through what will be an unbelievably difficult time.

Contest: UK Strategy for Countering Terrorism 2023

Holly Lynch: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on Contest, the United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering Terrorism 2023.

Suella Braverman: Yesterday, the Government published an update to our counter-terrorism strategy, Contest. A written ministerial statement was laid alongside the Command Paper in Parliament.
Contest has a clear mission: to reduce the risk from terrorism to the United Kingdom, our citizens and our interests overseas, so that people can go about their lives freely and with confidence. The terrorism threat level, set independently by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, has not changed, but the threat from terrorism is enduring and evolving. Despite a prevalence of lower-sophistication attacks in the UK, the threat we see today and in the coming years is more diverse, dynamic and complex: a domestic terrorist threat that is less predictable, harder to detect and harder to investigate; a persistent and evolving threat from Islamist terrorist groups overseas; and an operating environment in which accelerating advances in technology provide both opportunity for, and risk to, our counter-terrorism efforts.
It is within that context that we judge that the risk from terrorism is once again rising. By far the biggest terrorist threat comes from Islamist terrorism. It accounts for 67% of attacks since 2018, and about three quarters of MI5’s caseload. The remainder of the UK terrorist threat is largely driven by extreme right-wing terrorism, which accounts for approximately 22% of attacks since 2018 and about a quarter of the MI5 caseload. Our counter-terrorism response will be even more agile in the face of an evolving threat—more integrated, so that we can bring the right interventions to bear at the right time to reduce risk, and more aligned with our international allies, to ensure that we continue to deliver together against that common threat.
Through this updated strategy, we will place greater focus on using all the levers of the state to identify and intervene against terrorists. We will build critical partnerships with the private sector and international allies to keep the public safe, and we will harness the opportunities presented by new technology. There is no greater duty for this Government than to keep the British people safe, and I will not rest in delivering that mission.

Holly Lynch: The Contest update has very much been a sobering reminder of the threats we face. Our agencies, to which we are so grateful, have prevented 39 late-stage terror attacks in the past six years. The majority of them, as we have heard, were Islamist-motivated, with extreme right-wing terrorism making up the remainder. However, we are concerned by certain omissions from the update, and the disparity between the threats outlined and the responses proposed.
On artificial intelligence, the update recognises the challenge, saying that
“terrorists are likely to exploit the technology”.
We have called for new offences criminalising the training of chatbots to radicalise individuals, but concrete measures are woefully lacking in the update, so how are the Government going to tackle that? The update says that the threat from Daesh and al-Qaeda is on an “upward trajectory”, so can the Home Secretary tell us how we are working urgently with international partners to mitigate that risk?
The desperate situation in prisons is laid bare. With four of the nine terrorist attacks in the UK since 2018 perpetrated by serving or recently released prisoners, we are told individuals may develop
“a terrorist mindset…during their time in prison.”
Not only are we failing to de-radicalise people in prison, but people are being radicalised in prison, and failures to manage those prisoners on release are putting the public at risk. Can the Home Secretary tell the House how many terrorist prisoners are due to be released in the next 12 months, and whether every one of them has been engaged in intensive de-radicalisation programmes and assessed for terrorism prevention and investigation measures?
Finally, perhaps the most glaring omission is on state threats, despite the fact that the director general of MI5 made it clear in his annual threat update in November that Iran is
“the state actor which most frequently crosses into terrorism.”
In February, our agencies said that they had to disrupt 15 attempted kidnap and assassination attempts here in the UK. Remarkably, the report makes no reference to the resources, the approach or the powers necessary to respond to that form of terrorism. The Home Secretary knows that we have advocated for proscription powers on multiple occasions, so why do the Government continue to reject those proposals and why have they not finally proscribed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?

Suella Braverman: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I know that she recognises the gravity and the sensitivity of this subject, and she will share my view that we must face the threat of terrorism united as one unified country.
Since March 2017, our agencies and law enforcement have disrupted 39 late-stage terrorist plots in the UK, as the hon. Lady said. These have included the targeting of public figures such as Members of Parliament, specific communities and events such as Pride, and public locations such as iconic sites in London. I want to put on record my profound thanks and admiration of all the professionals who work day in, day out under pressure for all they do to keep the British people safe every day. Many of us will never know the lengths to which they go in applying their expertise, dedication and public service attitude to put our safety above their own.
I am very proud of this Government’s track record when it comes to keeping the country safe. As Martyn’s law makes its way through Parliament, I expect the Opposition to be responsible and to support us in our efforts to provide this extra layer of protection for venues. We have seen significant reforms in our National Security Bill, now enacted. The hon. Lady mentioned terrorism in prisons. We take a very tough approach to managing terrorist prisoners, limiting their interactions with each other and restricting their communications. We have developed a new counter-terrorism assessment  and rehabilitation centre for expert psychologists and specialist staff to research and implement specialist programmes to draw offenders away from terrorism. Indeed, the independent review of Prevent made extensive recommendations related to those in custody.
The hon. Lady referred to the use of artificial intelligence and technology. Foundation-model AIs undoubtedly hold vast potential, and they are crucial to the UK’s mission to become a science and tech superpower, but there are still many unknowns with this class of technology and many other forms of emerging technology that pose significant, but not yet fully understood, public safety and national security risks. I am particularly concerned about the rapid development and public deployment of generative large-language models like ChatGPT, and we are alert to the exponential pace of their development, the emergent capabilities which make the exact risks difficult to anticipate or control, and the relative ease with which safeguards can be overwritten. Those at the forefront of these technologies are explicit about the seriousness of the risks if proper safeguards are not developed quickly.
We look forward to promoting and enabling an open and constructive dialogue and deepened collaboration with tech company leaders, industry experts and like-minded nations as we seek to ensure that the gifts of this technology are delivered and that society is protected. Indeed, at the recent Five Eyes security meeting in New Zealand, where I represented the UK, we discussed the emerging hostile use of technology and collaborative ways in which we may work at the international level to mitigate those risks.
To conclude, I am very clear that we need to face the threats united as one country. I hope that the Opposition understand the heavy weight of that responsibility and that we will work together constructively to keep the British people safe.

Simon Fell: One of the most effective ways to disrupt, identify and reduce the terrorist threat is to bring together the disparate and disjointed data sources that exist to link organised crime group activity to terrorists. Will my right hon. and learned Friend detail how the Contest strategy will help make that happen?

Suella Braverman: As I mentioned in my statement yesterday, there is huge interaction—a blurring of the lines, if you like—between terrorist organisations and groups, hostile state actors and serious organised crime groups, acting on a transnational basis with sophisticated and well-resourced networks and a heightened level of elusiveness. That is exactly why our Contest strategy has been refreshed to realign our priorities, resources, technological capabilities and co-ordination across agencies to properly respond in a swift and robust way to these emerging threats.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

Stuart McDonald: May I start by expressing my party’s deep gratitude to all those who are working to  protect us from despicable terrorist attacks? Of course, our thoughts remain with all those who have suffered as a result of such evil crimes.
On that note, while I welcome the strategy’s focus on victims, may I raise the recent reports of survivors of terrorism who have been deeply upset by poor treatment by the criminal injuries compensation scheme? What discussions has the Home Secretary has had with colleagues about fixing those problems?
The strategy’s commitment to engage across the tech sector is welcome but, like the shadow Minister, I was surprised by its very limited reference to the use of artificial intelligence for radicalisation and instruction. The Windsor castle crossbow attacker is a perfect example of someone being radicalised in that way. Does the Home Secretary believe that legislation is required, and what concrete steps are being taken to address the use of AI in that way?
What extra funding will support the refreshed strategy, especially given the reports that later this year a significant number of convicted terrorists will complete their sentences, which will require the most careful management? The strategy recognises the critical importance of the closest partnership working with the devolved Governments and agencies that have responsibility for delivering various aspect of Contest. Can we have the Home Secretary’s assurances that that close working will continue?

Suella Braverman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his observations. He talked about support and compensation for victims of terrorism. More can and must be done, which is why the Government are reviewing the support available to better address victims’ needs. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that victims of terrorism get the full compensation to which they are entitled, in line with schemes administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. Those schemes deliver for victims of terrorism. The truth is that no amount of compensation can ever make up for the ordeal suffered by victims of terror. That is why it is right that survivors get all the support they need, in whatever form it may be required, through the publicly funded CICA, which paid out more than £158 million to victims of violent crime last year alone.

Theresa Villiers: I welcome the update of the strategy. It would be helpful if the Home Secretary told us whether it will get the big tech companies to do more to prevent terrorists from exploiting their platforms—an issue highlighted in the Intelligence and Security Committee report, “Extreme Right-Wing Terrorism”.

Suella Braverman: The technological aspect of terrorism is very real. Our enemies are using more and more sophisticated tools against us for hostile purposes. That is plain from an intelligence point of view. That is why Contest makes a deliberate point of addressing the technological features of this kind of work. A huge amount of investment and operational capability has been put into mitigating and dealing with that threat, most notably in the form of the counter-terrorism operations centre—a new collaboration centre that I had the honour of visiting recently.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

Diana R. Johnson: A few weeks ago I met Travis Frain, a founder member of Survivors Against Terror, who explained how his life had been changed forever by the Westminster bridge terrorist attack and how he did not get the support he needed in the aftermath. This week, a survey of 130 survivors of 11 major terrorist incidents found that more than two thirds felt that the compensation scheme overseen by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was unfair and unreasonable. The Home Secretary talked about a review. It is unacceptable that these people are in that position at the moment. When will the review actually be published?

Suella Braverman: As I mentioned, there are no words and there is no amount of money that can adequately reflect the pain and suffering experienced by victims of terrorism. That is why it is absolutely right that we provide victims of terrorism with full compensation and the fullest support possible and available to enable them to move forward from these tragic events. As I said, we know that more must be done. That is why we are reviewing the support available. We need to better address victims’ needs through the current schemes and ensure that they are properly meeting the needs of victims.

Crispin Blunt: There are people in Ukraine who found their territory illegally occupied and annexed by Russia, their children disappeared into Russian custody and their land settled by ethnic Russians. Under international law, we recognise the right of victims of the criminal actions of the Russian state to resist. How can we ensure that we do not end up characterising the legal actions by the victims in that conflict, and in other analogous conflicts around the world, as terrorism?

Suella Braverman: I am very proud of the UK’s track record of supporting Ukraine and the Ukrainians both in Ukraine and abroad through the devastating illegal conflict that Russia and Putin have waged upon them. It is right that we provide military support, it is right that we rolled out an extensive set of sanctions against Russia, and it is right that we continue our international and diplomatic support for Ukrainians.

Kevan Jones: I add my comments to those of the Home Secretary on our security services and thank them for the work that they do. The Intelligence and Security Committee report last year on right-wing terrorism found that 30% of disrupted plots were from right-wing terrorism, and that they mainly involved young people who aimed to join either the armed forces or the police. We made recommendations on tightening up the vetting of police officers and proscribing membership of right-wing organisations for members of the armed forces. Will the Home Secretary update the House on what progress has been made on those two issues?

Suella Braverman: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to refer to the emerging threat posed by extreme right-wing terrorism. The director general of MI5, in his annual update, referred to the ideologies that are emerging and increasing in activity, and the independent review of Prevent focused on work that can be better done. It is absolutely right that we take robust action.  That is why I am acting on the recommendations set out by Sir William Shawcross on upgrading and updating Prevent, so that it better responds to the risk of extreme right-wing terrorism, as well as to the risk posed by Islamist terrorism.

Henry Smith: In updating the UK’s counter-terror strategy, what work are the security services doing with UK Border Force to identify those entering the United Kingdom, particularly by irregular means?

Suella Braverman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Terrorists and those who have malign intent for our nation will exploit all sorts of vulnerabilities, including at the border—that is obvious. That is why the Contest upgrade deals specifically with this issue. We need to further strengthen the UK border as a critical line of defence against terrorism, taking advantage of new immigration tools—detection, targeting and biometric capabilities—to identify and block threats from entering the UK illegally in the first place.

Alistair Carmichael: This is a policy area that throws up some of the most difficult cases ever to be found, so I welcome the Home Secretary’s determination to build political consensus and ensure that we work with our strategic allies. Some of the most difficult cases around counter-terrorism involve UK citizens, especially children who were trafficked by ISIS and are currently in north-east Syria. That is an area where we risk becoming an outlier, because all our allies have repatriated their citizens. It risks causing friction between ourselves and our allies. Indeed, we have our own responsibility, given the fact that these are UK citizens who were trafficked. Is there anything in the strategy that will help to tackle those very difficult cases?

Suella Braverman: The right hon. Gentleman is right to refer to this very regrettable feature of modern day counter-terrorism. Paragraph 26 of the Contest strategy states:
“In recent years there has been a small increase in the number of minors investigated and arrested by Counter Terrorism Police. Most adverse activity conducted by minors has occurred online; over half of under-18s convicted of terrorism offences over the past five years were charged with non-violent offences (the collection or dissemination of terrorist publications).”
It is vital that we are cognisant of this emerging threat, and that we have the right resources, services and professionalism in place to mitigate and intercept the threat at source as soon as possible, but it is clear that wherever criminality has occurred there will be a robust response from the appropriate agencies.

James Wild: Technology brings huge benefits, but it is also exploited by terrorists. Is my right hon. and learned Friend confident that the updated strategy will ensure that technology companies do far more to prevent their services being used by those who wish us harm and to co-operate with our security and law enforcement services, particularly given the approach that some have taken on encryption and child abuse imagery?

Suella Braverman: My hon. Friend has spoken about an issue that is close to my heart: tackling online child sexual exploitation, which is rising at an exponential and horrifying pace. About 32 million instances of  online child sexual abuse were recorded by the global recording centre last year alone. In this country, we arrest 800 individuals a month involved in this heinous crime, and we safeguard about 1,200 children a month. It is horrifying, and that is why we are taking steps to work constructively with the tech companies. In terms of Contest, I refer him to the extensive sections on page 21 onwards and in other parts of the strategy that talk about the technological aspects, how it is emerging and our actions and response. Notably, our world-leading counter-terrorism operations centre, newly established, will bring together the right data, technology and expertise to investigate and disrupt these types of threats.

Khalid Mahmood: I welcome this statement. Although it was much delayed, it was much awaited. One of the key things missing from the strategy is the use of covert human intelligence sources—the people who used to be known as informants to the police. Increasing numbers of people caught under this network are people with mental health issues. Will the Home Secretary provide a detailed account of how many CHISs are used, what the results are and how many of those reported are people suffering with their mental health?

Suella Braverman: I cannot get into details that relate to operational independence and decisions made by the agencies in live investigations, but what I would say is that I expect all agencies and law enforcement organisations to use the full breadth of powers that we have afforded them.

Scott Benton: The current situation, whereby tens of thousands of young men are arriving in small boats on our shores—primarily young men from unstable parts of the world—is frankly an accident waiting to happen. Does the Home Secretary agree that the British people expect our borders to be robustly enforced, and that is just as important when it comes to defending our nation from terrorism as it is for anything else?

Suella Braverman: A strong border is critical to counter-terrorism. The Contest 2023 strategy clearly sets that out. In the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the Government revised schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, expanding powers to prevent illegal entry, including via small boats. Our migration and border system provides a critical opportunity to identify and manage individuals and goods that pose a terrorist concern. That is why rigour and robustness in our borders is essential for national security.

Stewart Hosie: In the Government’s response to the Intelligence and Security Committee’s “Extreme Right-Wing Terrorism” report—I thank the Home Secretary for referring to the scale of that threat earlier in her remarks—they said that
“our counter-terrorism strategy, CONTEST, remains threat agnostic so that rather than targeting specific ideologies, our tools, powers and overall CT approach can adapt to changing threats while also ensuring our approach is still able to identify and assess what are inherently ideological threats.”
Can I simply ask her to confirm that nothing she has said today and nothing that has been published changes the underlying philosophical basis of how the Contest strategy operates?

Suella Braverman: As the Contest strategy refresh makes clear, a broad range of ideologies and narratives draw people into supporting terrorism. That includes, as I have said, Islamist terrorism, which is by far the largest proportion of MI5’s case load, but there is also an increasing threat from extreme right-wing terrorism that we must confront, eliminate and do everything in our power to stop. Wherever it comes from, and however people are radicalised into extremist and violent behaviour, it is unacceptable, and we take a robust approach, ultimately, to keeping the British people safe.

Tonia Antoniazzi: In June this year, the borders inspectorate said that not every arrival into the UK at Manston was having security checks done as part of their interview or having their property checked. Can the Home Secretary guarantee now that every arrival is being fully checked, and if not, why not?

Suella Braverman: Having visited the reception centres at Western Jet Foil and Manston, and having been working closely on ensuring that the right facilities, resources and mechanisms are in place to ensure that those who arrive illegally are appropriately accommodated, I can say that we ensure that those who arrive are checked. They go through biometric checks and any other appropriate checks, and then they are put through our processing centres, generally at Manston. They are then put on a track, effectively, to other onward accommodation if they have an asylum claim. That is the general scheme that we have been carrying out for some time.

Tan Dhesi: The UK police and security services used to conduct more than 600 million real-time security checks on a shared EU platform before we lost access after Brexit. At the time, the Government informed us that we would have access to a shared platform within two or three years. Now, the permanent secretary has advised that we will not have access to a shared dataset until 2027 or 2028. Can the Home Secretary confirm just how much of a damaging effect the loss of this vital intelligence and security mechanism is having on our ability to tackle terrorism and cross-border crime?

Suella Braverman: I know the hon. Gentleman is on his Brexit bandwagon, or whatever it is, but the reality is that from a security point of view, we have never had stronger collaboration with international partners than today. We have continued to develop our global reach and insight through sustained working with allies. That is particularly with the Five Eyes, where we share an enormous amount of common approach and strategic development, but also with European partners. I have met many of my European counterparts, and we share the common goal of national security. In many instances, the UK is seen among European allies as a leader and a nation valued for its contribution to pan-European national security.

Alex Davies-Jones: As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), rightly stated, the Government’s update acknowledges that when it comes to AI,
“terrorists are likely to exploit the technology to create and amplify radicalising content, propaganda and instructional materials, and to plan and commit attacks.”
However, there are no concrete plans in the update to address those growing risks. Beyond pointing to the Government’s own Online Safety Bill, which has been delayed yet again and watered down, and other than the rhetoric we have heard today from the Secretary of State, what are the Government actually doing? What concrete plans are in place to tackle this growing problem, because we have seen little to no action thus far?

Suella Braverman: The hon. Lady obviously has not read the document. If she had, she would see our actions, our achievements and what our plans are. First—I will save her the trouble of reading the document—we are realising the full potential of our newly established, world-leading counter-terrorism operations centre. I do not think she has visited, but I recommend she tries to, because it is an incredibly impressive, world-leading operational centre established recently that brings together the right teams, data and technology to more effectively identify, interrupt and disrupt terrorists. We are also ensuring a broader range of expertise from non-law enforcement interventions to mitigate the evolving terrorist threat. We are maintaining our investment in the critical threat assessment capabilities through the world-class joint terrorism analysis centre. I could go on, but in the interests of time, she would probably do better to read the document first.

Luke Pollard: The new Contest counter-terrorism strategy mentions that incel threats
“could meet the threshold of terrorist intent or action”.
The person behind the shooting in Plymouth in 2021, where we lost five people, could have had their actions informed by incel culture and violent misogyny. Incel violence currently largely falls out of the scope of all the Prevent strategy tactics. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is now time to develop a cross-Government incel strategy, so that we can not only prevent people from going down that path towards violent misogyny, but help rescue those who are doing so? That would provide a greater level of community safety for women and our entire community, and we would never again see the violence we saw in Plymouth repeated on our streets.

Suella Braverman: The hon. Gentleman is an incredibly powerful advocate for his constituents. Let me put on record my thoughts and prayers for the loved ones of all of those who were tragically lost or affected. Incel culture is not strictly within the Contest apparatus, but it does need work. I readily accept that it is a violent trend and a radicalising influence that is promoting a culture that is totally at odds with the free, safe and democratic society that we all love and want to cherish. I am happy to speak to him about what further steps we can take as a Government.

Stephen Farry: In March, the security threat level in Northern Ireland was increased from substantial to severe in the aftermath of the attempted  murder of DCI John Caldwell. Since 2016, the additional security funding that the Government provide to the Police Service of Northern Ireland has been flatlining in cash terms at £32 million a year. Will the Home Secretary undertake to review that level of funding to ensure that the PSNI and the Security Service have the tools to continue their good work in combating both dissident republican and loyalist terrorism?

Suella Braverman: Northern Ireland-related terrorism remains a serious threat, particularly in Northern Ireland. The Contest strategy does not address the threat from Northern Ireland in Northern Ireland; that is managed by a separate strategic approach led by the Northern Ireland Office. At the Home Office, our Contest approach covers the threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism in mainland Great Britain. It is important that we do not decouple those two threats, which are very interlinked. We know that some dissident republican groups continue to carry out terrorist attacks, as the hon. Member referred to, so we need to ensure that all the resources are available, and we want to ensure that we support partners in Northern Ireland so they are readily equipped to mitigate and respond to the threat.

Martin Docherty: In June, the national security adviser to the Canadian Government—a key Five Eyes member—listed Russia, China and Iran as key state actors that pose a threat to Canadian life. They then added India to that list due to the rise of Hindu nationalist activity specifically targeting Canadian Sikhs. Is that anywhere in the Home Secretary’s thinking on extremism? If not, why not?

Suella Braverman: As I said, general ideologies are set out in our Prevent approach and our Contest approach. We are actor-agnostic, but we note where these threats are emerging based on a casework analysis, as confirmed by MI5 and other agencies. The predominant threats relate to Islamist terrorism, but of course it is right that there are robust law-enforcement responses for any kind of violence or extremism that meets the criminal threshold.

Jim Shannon: I welcome very much the Secretary of State’s answers to the questions posed. Further to the question from the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), will she outline what steps have been taken to allocate additional funding to local police forces in areas with higher threat levels such as Northern Ireland, where republican terrorism is a real threat to the democratic process? Bearing in mind that the police budget in Northern Ireland has been cut in real terms in a time of crisis, will she confirm what discussions have taken place with the Chief Constable and the Policing Board to ensure that the commitment to ringfencing funding for the battle against terrorism in all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is maintained?

Suella Braverman: I made some reference to the specific nature of the threat posed by Northern Ireland-related terrorism. It is clear that it is primarily concentrated and directed against targets in Northern Ireland. I regularly discuss with UK Government colleagues how we can ensure robust defences across the whole piece, but I am happy to see what more can be done through a conversation.

Margaret Ferrier: The rapid proliferation of end-to-end encryption and anonymous messaging services allows terrorist groups  to communicate freely without the risk of detection or identification. Of course, personal privacy must be upheld for ordinary citizens, so how are the Government looking to work with tech experts to find alternative ways of accessing the communications of members of such groups?

Suella Braverman: This is something that really does concern me. The proposed roll-out of end-to-end encryption without enabling lawful access or without safeguards will pose a danger not just to national security, but to children and to all our people. It is vital that the technology companies work with us to roll out the available technology—I am confident that it exists—to enable and protect privacy rights, but at the same time to enable law enforcement access and interventions to take place so that we can safeguard children online, prevent radicalisation online and prevent criminality online.

Veterans Update

Ben Wallace: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like expand on the apology delivered by the Prime Minister this afternoon for the unacceptable hurt caused to LGBT members of our nation’s armed forces by the 1967 to 2000 ban on homosexuality. It was not acceptable and it was not what the brave men and women it affected deserved. For that, on behalf of the Government and the armed forces, I am deeply sorry.
For hundreds of years, joining the British armed forces has been a career choice full of opportunity, adventure and self-improvement; one of the most fulfilling and stimulating occupations a young person can choose. But it is also one of self-sacrifice and bravery. This morning, we published the independent review into the service and experience of LGBT veterans who served prior to 2000. It makes for miserable and distressing reading. It is only right that the House takes the time to acknowledge and reflect on those veterans who have shared their experiences with the review.
I, along with a number of colleagues in the House, served in our armed forces when the ban was in place. I cannot imagine what it must have been like for someone to join the armed forces, buoyed up by that great spirit of service, only to discover, to their horror, that many believed they did not fit. I cannot imagine what it must have felt like to be hounded out of a job they loved simply on account of their sexuality. Nor can I imagine what it must have been like to lose their livelihood, their family and their home simply because of the person they chose to love, yet that was the experience of many sailors, soldiers and aviators over decades, and it happened here—in this country—little over 20 years ago. The report published today brings the experience to life for us and spotlights the hurt felt by those affected. For that, I am truly grateful.
The ban was introduced in 1967—unbelievably, after the Sexual Offences Act 1967 decriminalised same-sex sexual acts in private between consenting adults. To add to the injustice, when the ban ended at the beginning of the millennium, the stories of those who suffered were forgotten and their records were buried. Additionally, in 2010 and 2011, in line with Government policy agreed by the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Ministry of Defence enacted a policy to destroy legacy police investigation records concerning decriminalised sexual offences, so that historical decriminalised convictions could not show up on criminal record checks of service personnel. I assure veterans that this was not a cover-up and does not mean that their wider service records have been destroyed.
I want to place on the record my thanks and gratitude to Lord Etherton and his team for compiling this comprehensive report. It was commissioned in January 2022 and, since, 1,128 people have responded with their experiences, many in substantial detail. I pay particular tribute to all those who came forward. They have shown tremendous courage in chronicling traumatic experiences, which for many had been causing grief and groundless shame for decades. I also place on record my admiration and thanks to Fighting With Pride, and especially Craig and Caroline, who have held the baton for so long.
The testimonies make truly harrowing reading. They paint a shocking and shameful picture of a Defence that is hard to comprehend. The enforcement of the ban became something of a witch hunt. The testimonies detail investigations, invasive searches and examinations, degrading tests, brutal bullying and, in some cases, sexual abuse. One doctor who joined in 1984 describes how he had to perform a test for which there was no medical or clinical basis. Some who thought they could confide in their chaplains were stunned to find their details were passed to their superiors.
For those affected, the hardships impacted every aspect of their lives. Reputations were demeaned and defamed. Commissions were surrendered and officers demoted by multiple ranks. Veterans who served with distinction, awarded medals in famous campaigns from the Falklands to the Gulf, were stripped of their medals.
We cannot turn back the clock, but we can make amends and take action. This report makes 49 recommendations. My Department, alongside the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, the Department for Health and Social Care and others across Government, in partnership with the devolved Administrations and the charity sector, all have a role in delivering the report’s recommendations. Many in the LGBT veteran community have been eagerly awaiting the publication of this report, and rightly so—they have been waiting for decades to be heard. I am pleased to say that, since we received this report at the end of May, multiple Government Departments have been busy working through the recommendations to ensure that we come to the House today accepting, in principle, the vast majority of the report’s recommendations. While we agree with the intent behind them, we may deliver a number in different ways from that described in the report.
We will set out those differences when we publish the Government’s full response to the review after the summer recess, but I assure the House: that will be the time when we can not only deliver restitution and redress to the LGBT veteran community, but make sure that the House properly debates the report and the Government’s response to it and its recommendations. This of course is a statement today. While I welcome all colleagues’ challenges and requests on it, I have decided specifically that a debate in the House should take place to give a chance to debate the Government’s recommendations. That is the right thing to do. Although that may take the summer, it is important that both Opposition and our colleagues can hold me or my successor to account. In fact, we have already delivered six of the recommendations today; the Prime Minister delivered the first this morning at the Dispatch Box.
Importantly, we have set up a digital front door, which went live today at midday, to offer information on veterans’ services, support and restorative measures to those affected by the ban. I encourage LGBT veterans to visit it to see what support is available to them now, and to stay informed as our delivery of the recommendations is rolled out. I am happy to be drawn on further details on the recommendations during today’s questions but, as I said, the House should have proper time to debate and scrutinise them.
I am glad that today’s MOD is a very different place today from the Defence of the late ’60s to ’90s. Our LGBT colleagues are an integral and undifferentiated   part of the Defence family, making a fantastic difference all over the world. At the start of this month, the Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), met LGBT members of our armed forces and veterans before they marched at London Pride. The occasion has become a celebrated part of our military calendar. Today’s MOD policies are geared towards LGBT issues. There is training for LGBT allies and thriving LGBT staff networks.
There is no place for prejudice in the modern armed forces. However, things are by no means perfect, which is why we continue to improve on our zero-tolerance policy towards discrimination. We should not forget that we could not have reached this point were it not for some incredibly brave people. I pay tribute to those who have campaigned for justice over the decades, including Fighting With Pride, Rank Outsiders and the Armed Forces Legal Action Group.
Cultural change takes time, particularly in such large organisations as our armed forces. But it can only really begin when individuals are prepared to stand up and be counted. This Government have shown they care about righting historic wrongs. That is why we brought forward this review. Once we have taken the time needed to fully work out how to deliver recompense for this community, we look forward to being back at the Dispatch Box to outline those details.
In his preface to the report, Lord Etherton notes:
“The survivors have waited for at least 23 years for acknowledgment of what they have suffered, and for justice and restitution.”
Today is about that acknowledgment. It is about recognising the saddening personal accounts and the deep traumatic hurt that the historic ban has caused. It is about acknowledging the adversity they overcame. It is about celebrating the spirit of service they displayed. And it is about taking the time to acknowledge their importance within our Defence family, serving or veteran.
I was struck by one particular quote in the report from a veteran:
“I don’t feel I am a veteran. I have never asked for help. I don’t feel like my service was recognised.”
Today, we want to say to all those ex-soldiers, sailors and aviators, many of whom are in retirement: you are one of us, you belong to our community and, in choosing to put yourself in harm’s way for the good of your colleagues, your community and your country, you have proven yourselves the best of us.
I say again to the veteran community—I am deeply sorry for what happened to you. The very tolerance and values of a western democracy that we expected you to fight for we denied to you. It was profoundly wrong. I am determined as Defence Secretary, and as a veteran, to do all I can today to right those historic wrongs, so that you can once again take pride in your service and inspire future generations to follow in your footsteps.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Rachel Hopkins: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Today might be his last appearance at the Dispatch Box, so I pay tribute to him for focusing his last appearance on such an important issue for the LGBT+ community.
I thank Lord Etherton and his team for their diligent work in completing the review into the pre-2000 ban on LGBT+ serving personnel in the UK armed forces. As the Leader of the Opposition said at Prime Minister’s questions, we strongly welcome the apology from the Prime Minister as a recognition of this historic injustice.
The review represents important progress in recognising the injustice that LGBT+ veterans have suffered, and recommends a framework to enable LGBT+ veterans to rebuild their lives and get the resolution they need. On behalf of the Labour party, I pay tribute to LGBT+ veterans and groups such as Fighting With Pride which have campaigned for justice over this appalling treatment. It was right for the Government to launch the review, reflecting proposals put forward by the Labour party during the passage of the Armed Forces Act.
The loss of livelihoods and long-term suffering endured by LGBT+ veterans due to the cruel and unjust ban have been enormous. LGBT+ veterans put their lives at risk to protect our country. They were our nation’s heroes, yet suffered a serious injustice. We now know that, as a consequence of the ban, around 20,000 LGBT+ military personnel were jailed, dismissed, outed to their families or subjected to abuse, simply because of their sexuality or gender identity. That should have never happened. Many lost a job they loved, and their income, pension and honours. Those dishonourably discharged were banned from wearing their military uniform at remembrance events. Many more were forced to conceal their true identity. The review references the shocking and appalling treatment of serving LGBT+ personnel, including the disgraceful use of electric shock therapy. No one across the whole of society should be subjected to that awful practice.
I have spoken to brave LGBT+ veterans impacted by the ban, who told me how they lost careers they loved, suffered disgraceful abuse and still suffer the impact of the ban—all for simply being themselves. Many LGBT+ veterans showed exceptional courage to reach back into traumatic memories to contribute to the review. The review received 1,128 responses from people sharing their lived experiences. It is important that their testimonies are heard to ensure that the LGBT+ community has a sense of ownership of the report.
Today’s commitments represent the beginning of the process. We must now see immediate action from the Government to implement the review’s recommendations, as that will begin the process of helping LGBT+ veterans to get the resolution they need and, in some cases, rebuild their lives. The Secretary of State said that the Government agree with the intent behind the recommendations, but may deliver a number of them in a different way from that described in the report. Will he outline to the House which recommendations will be delivered in a different way from that set out in the report? How has that been decided? Will the Government work with LGBT+ veterans and third sector groups to ensure that they are delivered appropriately?
We fully support giving back medals to LGBT+ veterans and ending the ban on those dishonourably discharged due to their sexuality or gender identity from wearing uniform at remembrance ceremonies. I  hope the Minister will outline how veterans can seek  the return of their medals. Recommendation 28 states  that an
“appropriate financial award should be made to affected veterans”.
How are the Defence Secretary and the Chancellor planning to take that forward?
Any proposed compensation scheme must be accessible to all veterans affected, whether they were dishonourably discharged, medically discharged, at the time, because of their sexuality, or dismissed while under investigation. The recommendations relating to mental health and physical welfare must be delivered in an inclusive manner that recognises all LGBT+ veterans and the different ways in which they were affected by the ban and dismissed. Can the Secretary of State assure the House and the LGBT+ community that this is an issue his Department is actively considering?
The Government must do whatever it takes to successfully implement the recommendations. We look forward to their full response and to a future debate. We cannot right the wrongs of the past, but we can help LGBT+ veterans now fix their lives, damaged for too long by this ban.

Ben Wallace: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she has said. I think that all of us—the Opposition and those of us on this side of the House—share not only a desire to honour those veterans and make our apology, but a recognition that we must work to deliver recommendations that will make that difference. There is no delay and we are not avoiding the question: when I said that “we may” apply some recommendations in a different way from that described in the report, I was alluding to simple issues relating to the general data protection regulation and to differences of opinion in the same community.
Let me give an example: the veterans badge. Some members of the LGBT community would say that they are veterans, full stop. They do not want to be differentiated; they want the same badge as all other veterans. There are others, however, who want a separate badge. There is no easy answer to that, which is why we will be working on the issue with organisations such as Fighting With Pride. The same goes for financial provision or recognition of the harm done. We must arrive at an elegant solution that matches the needs and requirements of those individuals, rather than coming to the House in haste and making a statement. As we have seen with the infected blood scheme, for instance, when schemes are not thought through, more problems are caused and lawyers seem to take more money than the victims who deserve to be compensated or supported.
We will be very happy to work with the Opposition in advance of any debate to discuss our thinking on the recommendations. We have no qualms about that: the whole House has a role to play in valuing these veterans. People in my age group served in the old Army, and I say “old Army” because what the report says about institutional homophobia is true, and Members should read it. I was part of that Army, and I was determined to make this statement today—rather than its being made by my excellent colleague the Minister—because I wanted to acknowledge that I had been part of that Army and that thinking, which I deeply regret.
We should get these recommendations right, but some elements are less straightforward than others. Where we have been able to get on with them, we have done so, with, for instance, the apology. “LGBT veterans: support  and next steps” went live today on gov.uk. It refers to the process of helping to restore medals, which we have done, and helping to inform the veterans communities about, for example, the fact that their pension rights were not abolished. Many, as they left, were misinformed or bullied, and told all sorts of things—for example, that their records would disappear completely, and that they would have no pension. That is not true. There are some pensions still to be claimed, and we should do everything we can to help the people concerned.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us hear from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, Crispin Blunt.

Crispin Blunt: I found a way of accommodating myself to the laws and to the rules of society of the time. I then overtly followed a successful journey through my life and career. This report—an outstanding piece of work—is causing me to re-evaluate the damage done to me, and the price paid by those closest to me, as a result of having to make that accommodation. I am profoundly grateful that I now live in a society, and under laws, that allow me to be myself. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that all 49 recommendations are delivered in a spirit that meets the author’s intention?

Ben Wallace: My hon. Friend is a good friend of mine, and I remember him making that brave decision. Many of us on this side of the House who know him well—and many on the other side—pay tribute not only to his decision to come out at that moment, but to his ongoing campaigning for LGBT people and, indeed, for all those across society who have had to make such difficult decisions in their lives. I can give him an assurance that we will absolutely hold to the spirit and the intention behind the recommendations, that we will do everything we can to implement them, and that only when we encounter difficult technical challenges will we seek another way of fulfilling the intention. All that will be done in a transparent manner, not behind closed doors. We will ensure that when we have a problem, we discuss it; and when there are two sides to the argument—as with the veterans badge—we will consult the community as closely as possible. I also ask Members to recognise that in the case of some of the recommendations there will be no perfect answer: some people within that community will have a different view, and we must find a way of accommodating that as well.

Eleanor Laing: I call the Scottish National party spokesman.

Martin Docherty: I hope you will indulge me for a moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know that this may be the Secretary of State’s last time at the Dispatch Box in this role—let us see what the summer brings—and I have to say to him, as a former member of the Defence Committee, that I found him hard-working and determined. We might not have always agreed on a few things, but when it came to issues that I found particularly important as a member of that Committee, especially the High North and the north Atlantic, he always answered the questions in a way that the Committee wanted to hear. I commend him for his work in his current role, and you never know—we might see him back in Holyrood, where it  all started.
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I think it quite appropriate that this last appearance—possibly—at the Dispatch Box should be one in which he rights, as he said, a historic wrong. I also commend those who have played a part in bringing us to this point—I see Craig Jones and Caroline Paige in the Public Gallery. I commend them and everyone else who has worked for this so hard for so many years.
Those of us on these Benches welcome this statement. Being a member of the gay community has never been a barrier to martial accomplishment. Let me give a little history lesson: from Achilles to Frederick the Great, and from James VI to even William III, we should be clear that LGBT people have served with distinction at every level of the armed forces for as long as humanity has existed. I appreciate the Secretary of State’s candour about his own time in service. I also appreciate his clear use of the term “the LGBT community.” It is indeed welcome that his Department has not sought to play a part in other issues that are a distraction from the reality of the LGBT community, and I am extremely grateful for that.
While acknowledging the work that has brought us to where we are now, can I ask the Secretary of State what work his Department is doing not only to widen access for LGBT personnel, but to push back against the pernicious idea that LGBT inclusion is contrary to the interests of the armed forces and our national security? While we may want to talk about medals, which is great, perhaps we could hear something about pensions for the spouses of those who have not lived to see this point in time.

Ben Wallace: I am grateful to my honourable colleague across the Floor. As he says, we never know: he may find me back in the Scottish Parliament, where it all began.

Martin Docherty: An independent one.

Ben Wallace: I am not going to live to the age of 200, so I do not know, but I have always enjoyed working with the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right: there is no barrier to the success of gay men and women and what they can achieve in this world. Dr Turing was probably the greatest hero of the second world war, in my book. His achievements shortened the war, saved thousands of lives and helped to defeat the Nazis. The story of how society treated him is a sad one. I remember campaigning for him to appear on a £50 note, and I think that the empty plinth in Parliament Square, rather than featuring the Mayor’s various gimmicks every five minutes, should feature him as well. That would be the greatest tribute to the success of someone from the LGBT community and what they have done in this world.
The hon. Gentleman asked about pensions. As I said earlier, pension rights are still there for those veterans. I trust that the website I mentioned will lead those who were not aware of that, or who were badly informed or deliberately misled, to the true position, and to the fact that with those rights will come the rights of their dependants. I would be very happy, as a Back Bencher in this House, to take up that cause and make sure that they have access to that as well. Diversity and inclusion are often knocked and ridiculed by the media, as are our efforts to try to accommodate all in our armed  forces, but our armed forces are only as good as the society they reflect. We cannot afford not to have the talent of the LGBT community, just as we cannot afford not to have the talent of women, in the armed forces. It would be simply ridiculous if we were not to encourage it, support it and make sure that it thrives.

James Gray: I thank my right hon. Friend, and also the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins)—for all they have had to say about this excellent report. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), whose testimony moved us all. This is a very fine report, and Lord Etherton has done a first-class job in bringing it forward. I very much welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has made a real and heartfelt apology—as did my right hon. Friend in his statement—for this historic outrage. However, would the House agree that the real outrage is that nothing at all has happened for 22 years? It has taken us as a nation 22 years, under all parties, to put this thing right. That is quite wrong. I therefore think that the sincerity of the Prime Minister’s apology will be judged not only by how well he does in achieving the 49 recommendations in the report but by how enthusiastically, how rapidly and how well he brings those things forward. The LGBT community are waiting to see what he does. We look forward to the debate in the autumn and we will judge him by the enthusiasm with which he adopts these recommendations.

Ben Wallace: I cannot answer the question of why it took 22 years. All I can say is that, from the authority I have in my office for now, having been able to commission this report and start this process is something that I am proud and pleased to have done, ably supported by the Veterans Minister and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, and by my colleague the Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). I can only speak for that. As for the enthusiasm and support for getting this implemented, I will be sitting alongside my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) and I can hold whoever comes to this Dispatch Box to account to do it. I absolutely think we should do it with enthusiasm. At one stage we thought about just having a full debate on this today, but that would have involved coming here with no solutions. That would be the worst thing to do to the House. The best thing is to come here with this statement today and come back after the summer and hold the Government to account. I will be there, beside my hon. Friend, holding them to account on whether they uphold these recommendations.

Stephen Doughty: I draw the House’s attention to my own interest in this, including my past service as an openly gay Army reservist after the ban. I strongly welcome the apology today, but I am acutely aware that I was able to serve openly only because of the repeal of the ban, and that I had a very different experience in service than that of so many here today, including the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt). I cannot praise enough the work of the veterans who have campaigned so tenaciously, and also their service and the courage that they have exhibited so many times during and after their service careers.
I wrote to the Ministry of Defence a few years ago on behalf of a lesbian constituent who had been discharged for her sexuality. It was the first time she had told anyone about this when she came to see me in my surgery, and she told me that it was recorded in her record of service and her discharge that her services were no longer required, although of course she was discharged for being a lesbian. She told me of the horrific experiences she had gone through, including the invasion of her privacy, and the impact that had had on her for decades. The MOD told me that her service record could not be amended because it had been administered correctly and that it would be inappropriate to do so. Given the recommendations in the report, particularly recommendations 26 and 27, can the Secretary of State tell me whether records will now be able to be changed to truly reflect the service and bravery of so many of our veterans?

Ben Wallace: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question and for his service. When I think of my own experience, I know that being friends with and getting to know men and women from the gay community—which I did not really do in my childhood or in my service because it was never talked about—is what has brought me to a position where I regret voting against gay marriage, for example. My relationships and friendships with people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and the former Member for Arundel and South Downs, and meeting friends and colleagues from throughout the House, is part of the experience for all of us.
On the hon. Gentleman’s question of making sure that those veterans who want their service record to say what they want it to and being open about it, we absolutely should see a way of how we can accommodate that. It is not going to be easy, but that does not mean we cannot do it. There was clearly a policy running through the armed forces where the real reasons that people left were not put on their records. I think that applies to thousands, or even tens of thousands, of people. Of course that is going to be a challenge, but it is not insurmountable. We must find a way to do this, and I am clear that we should do so.
However, I also remember a debate about pardons when I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Ministry of Justice. At that stage, there was a longing for people’s records to be removed because people did not want a record of a criminal offence that they felt should never have happened. That was the driving force behind the police chiefs’ discussions that led to the destruction of those records. As I have said, it was not a cover-up. There were some people who said, “This is wrong and it should not be on my record. Why should I be known for that?” So we just have to find a way through. If there is anything we can do to find a way of doing this, I will do my very best to do it and I know that the Defence team will as well.

Julian Lewis: Does the review report throw any light on the strange paradox that this ban was so rigidly enforced in peacetime, yet during the first and second world wars there was mass conscription, as a result of which many gay military personnel served with distinction and were awarded the highest medals for gallantry?

Ben Wallace: That is a pretty cruel reflection on a state, and it affected not just LGBT people but women. In the first and second world wars, women kept industry going. They kept the home fires burning and kept the factories going. Women were not allowed to fly fighter planes in war, but they were allowed to deliver them. Then, after the war, everyone went back to treating women as, in some cases, second-class citizens in the workplace. It is a good observation that we should not repeat this, and that we should embrace the fact we now have great achievers serving in our armed forces who are gay. This is the way to ensure that we set the right example for the future.

Margaret Ferrier: I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement. With 270 pages and 49 recommendations, it is a lot of summer reading. I welcome the Government’s apology to LGBT veterans today. Those veterans served their country but a number of them were stripped of their medals. Will those medals now be returned swiftly and will the ban on LGBT veterans wearing their uniform at ceremonies be lifted?

Ben Wallace: In answer to both: yes. Also, some veterans were told that they did not qualify for medals in the first place. They, too, will be able to have their medals from now on.

James Sunderland: I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement, which, as a proud LGBTQ+ champion, I strongly support. I wonder if he might indulge me the opportunity, as a former commanding officer, of presenting him with his annual appraisal on his final tour of duty with the MOD. It says here, quite clearly, that Captain Wallace is strident, forthright, spirited and fearless in the pursuit of an outcome, which we have just seen in this statement. I have regretfully graded him A- for potential, given that he is moving on from the top job, but we can all agree that he gets an A+ for performance. Does he agree that he is leaving the MOD a much better place than it was when he arrived, not least for LGBTQ+ personnel?

Ben Wallace: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If the truth be known, I do not think I ever got an A in anything. Maybe I am finishing this job without being found out.

Kevan Jones: I warmly welcome the report and pay tribute to the campaigners. Recommendation 16 refers to pensions, and the issue has already been raised as to whether survivors will be beneficiaries. Can I stress that that needs looking at? Recommendation 28 relates to financial compensation. The MOD set the Committee a maximum of £50 million as a cap on what could be paid in compensation. I urge the Secretary of State not to use that as a way of keeping compensation payments down to keep the Treasury happy. Could he also clarify—I know that the Veterans Minister is not here today for the announcement—who will implement the recommendations?

Ben Wallace: I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman to clarify the pathway to the pension, which is important.
First and foremost, we recognise that there should be a financial award. Secondly, as I said, it is important that we work with people like Fighting With Pride on  how we can do that. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs is sitting right above the right hon. Gentleman, and the implementation will predominantly be done by the Ministry of Defence, but some recommendations are cross-Government. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman and I, from the Back Benches, will write to the Treasury.

Alicia Kearns: I thank my right hon. Friend for his courage and openness, and I thank the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs for his work. The report makes for incredibly difficult reading. We are a proud service and military community in Rutland, Melton, the Vale and Harborough villages. I take this opportunity to recognise that community and to put on record that we see them and hear them, and that it was the senior military of the time who stole careers and stole futures. They are the ones who should feel ashamed, not those who served or who sought to serve our country.
I also put on record the House’s sorrow that there was the same ban on diplomatic staff, with an apology being made only in 2021. We see them and thank them for their work.
We work with, train and equip many militaries around the world that continue to persecute LGBT people who simply want to protect their people. What are we doing to make sure that, when we work with, train and equip those militaries, we do not allow them to repeat the mistakes we made?

Ben Wallace: My hon. Friend’s last point is incredibly valid. Yes, we train people all over the world to protect their societies, but what is the point if we do not also train them to uphold international humanitarian and human rights laws? On many occasions we do that. I once stood in Lebanon to listen to former British soldiers, under a British scheme, train the Lebanese army in human rights. That is incredibly important, otherwise what is it all for?
I understand my hon. Friend’s point about senior commanders, but it would be wrong to focus on only one cohort. Ultimately, the institutional organisation, culture and mindset—and society’s mindset that affected diplomats, the judiciary and everything else—were collectively responsible for the environment that led to this. As a rather junior officer I did not have a role and did not come across anyone who was going to be locked up or prosecuted, but I take responsibility as much as the senior people in the Department who made the policy.

Clive Efford: I welcome this statement, and I sincerely welcome the manner in which it has been delivered. It shows the Defence Secretary’s leadership qualities, which have been all too lacking in many other leading politicians in recent times.
I pay tribute to my constituent Simon Hinchley-Robson, who urged me to bring his case to the Floor of the House in an Adjournment debate. He was horribly physically abused after being outed by a doctor who had given him a medical examination, before being summarily dismissed from the RAF. He was denied his pension and his opportunity to serve his country. He, like many others, deserves redress.
What I do not want to see are the interminable cases we are seeing with contaminated blood, Grenfell and  the Post Office. What can the Secretary of State say today to ensure that we do not see such delays and obfuscation in this case?

Ben Wallace: Some of the delay and obfuscation was driven by a rush to get a scheme that satisfies speed. The obfuscation is not always deliberate. We have seen a list of examples where things have been written incorrectly. I remember the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) campaigning on the vibration white finger scandal. The intention was good, but the lawyers were the ones who profited, so we have to get it right.
If the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) would like to write to me personally on behalf of his constituent, I will make sure of his pension rights, which were not taken away from these people. They may have been informed as such, so we must make sure that their pension rights have not been taken away. If there is a reason why they were taken away, I am very happy to explore making sure they are restored.

Matt Warman: Whether it is the cadets, the battle of Britain memorial flight or the Red Arrows, the military’s reach goes far beyond simply their personnel. Does the Secretary of State agree that the least the military can do, in the light of today’s report, is use their influence to try to break down broader anti-LGBT prejudice in our society?

Ben Wallace: I totally agree. When people join the armed forces, they want to belong. One of the best parts of basic training is when they are finally given their beret or when they finally pass their weapons test. Believe it or not, being on guard for the first time feels like they are being treated like a proper soldier, and they just want to belong. The fact that they all look the same and are wearing the same uniform is actually part of the attraction. That has to be the quality we sell to people. It does not matter if a person is gay or straight, or whatever they are. They are part of the collective defence of this fine nation and its values. The Red Arrows, trooping the colour, the cadet forces and all those other symbols are, in a sense, about belonging to one thing.

Tan Dhesi: LGBT+ veterans were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice and risk their life to protect our country. They were our nation’s heroes, but they suffered such a gross injustice. I am proud that Labour repealed the ban on LGBT+ service personnel in 2000, and I welcomed the Etherton review when it was first launched. Does the Defence Secretary agree that the Prime Minister’s very welcome apology is merely the first step in the healing process, as we attempt to correct this historic wrong? Does he also acknowledge that how compensation is dealt with will be the true barometer of the Government’s success in dealing with our LGBT+ veterans?

Ben Wallace: The true barometer will be how we implement all 49 recommendations. Yes, financial awards will be part of it but, for some, the restoration and the valuing of these people is just as important.
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point, but not a single other Member has talked about party politics or political parties. My point about the overall culpability of society  is that my party opposed lifting the ban and his party opposed lifting the ban. The European Court of Human Rights ruled against them and forced them to do it. I came to this House in the spirit of honesty and openness about the culpability of society. Let us not make it party political.

Paul Holmes: I welcome the apology, which will go some way towards correcting the hurt that our veterans faced. As a proud member of the Royal Navy branch of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have seen at first hand the vital role of our LGBT personnel. What efforts is the Secretary of State making to ask the service chiefs to redouble their efforts to make our armed forces even more welcoming in the recruitment of LGBT people?

Ben Wallace: We have a strong and dynamic D&I plan to make sure we talk about it. We are sometimes criticised, and it is not an easy line to follow, as we saw with the RAF’s issue in promoting the recruitment of women. We are guided by the Equality Act 2010, but we are also guided by the desperate need and importance of having the whole of society in our armed forces.
I would not appoint a Chief of the General Staff, First Sea Lord or Chief of the Air Staff who did not wholeheartedly believe in having a diverse armed forces community. They would not get past me in the appointments process. As I finish this job, I have appointed all the armed forces chiefs. Every single one of them embraces that requirement and actions it.

Richard Foord: I mention my political party only to associate the Liberal Democrats with the Defence Secretary’s comments. I respect him a great deal, and I thank him for what would be referred to as long service and good conduct in another career. My thoughts are with former LGBT service personnel whose family members died before the policy changed and before the apology was made.
Have there been discussions with homelessness charities, such as St Petrocs in Devon, on identifying veterans who were dishonourably discharged and found themselves on the street?

Ben Wallace: Some of the recommendations will go across government, including those on homelessness, which the hon. Gentleman rightly highlights. It will be important that the MOD and the Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families work closely with the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to make sure that we have that grip not just across national Government, but across local government. If we are really to implement some of these recommendations, we require our approach to involve not only the whole of the government sector, but the charitable sector.

Anthony Mangnall: I absolutely support the Defence Secretary’s campaign to put a statue of Dr Turing in Trafalgar Square if that is what he is launching. Today’s apology is particularly welcome and will make a huge difference, but a large part of the community left the military of their own accord. They were not hounded out and they did not have marks on their service record, and this report has to ensure that it takes those people into account, because they left and gave up successful long careers in the military because they felt that the environment was not supportive of  them. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me and my constituents that the report will make sure that they are kept under consideration?

Ben Wallace: My hon. Friend makes not only an important point, but a difficult one. Obviously, there were people who were formally discharged, but there were not that many of them. Others were elbowed out, fitted up, set up or pushed out because of other offences. Then there were others who just said, “I am unwelcome and I am leaving.” First, those people will know who they are, and I hope they read this report, which is an easy and good one to read. Someone said it was long reading over the summer, but it is not. It will not take long to read Lord Etherton’s report, and it is a good report. I hope that those people will also use the Government website and that they will find a way in which they can come forward and talk about their experience. We have to find a way to make it up to them if there is something they need.

Alex Davies-Jones: As the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) said, one of the most humbling and inspiring experiences a parliamentarian can have is taking part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Earlier this year, along with colleagues, I had the immense privilege of observing our Marines in Norway as part of their cold weather deployment training. We got to meet our proud lesbian, gay and trans service personnel—they are proud to serve our nations, and our nations should be proud of them. They spoke of how the culture has rightly changed, and I thank the Secretary of State for taking part in that culture change and making it happen. However, there is always more to do, so what can his successor do to ensure that all our armed forces, from our cadet forces onward, are inclusive and free of discrimination?

Ben Wallace: The first thing to do is to have exposure to everybody in the community and for people to be able to talk about their sexuality and experiences without fear or hindrance. My children’s experiences and ability to talk about a range of things are very different from those of my generation. That is because these things are much more acceptable to be talked about. Every time a soldier in training meets someone from the LGBT community who is sitting next door to them or is on a patrol with them, we see that that is the strongest way to change the culture. That is the first challenge: let us get more people from the LGBT community joining our armed forces, as that will help change the culture for good.

Elliot Colburn: I, too, thank my right hon. Friend for the candour he has displayed in bringing forward this important report, which has been warmly welcomed by LGBT+ veterans in Carshalton and Wallington. May I press him on the issue of marriage on the defence estate? I know that three marriages have happened since the change of regulations in 2014, yet the defence estate still does not allow civil marriages or civil partnerships to take place on the estate. That has a particular impact on the LGBT+ community. I know that he is already looking at this matter, but will he reassure us that the MOD will continue to make this policy more inclusive?

Ben Wallace: I totally hear what my hon. Friend is saying. I have just made certain decisions on exactly that issue that I cannot yet talk about. The relationship between the church and the military is complicated, with respect to church premises and so on. I am happy to write to him to set out the details. My intention is that these military premises or church premises should be open to administer marriages and so on to people of all orientations.

Ashley Dalton: I wish to acknowledge the campaigning work of LGBT+ veterans and others on this issue, and to add my voice to the thanks to Lord Etherton for this excellent report, which is welcome and much needed. The Secretary of State committed in his statement to a zero-tolerance approach to LGBT+ discrimination in the armed forces and he just talked about culture change. As LGBT people, we do not just come out once; we have to come out over and over again, sometimes several times in one day. I welcome his acknowledgement that LGBT+ people joining the military is much to be welcomed, but LGBT+ people cannot be responsible for tackling the culture change that is needed simply by turning up. Will he please outline what the Government are doing today to make sure that the culture change we so desperately need in our armed forces is taking place and that the Government take responsibility for it?

Ben Wallace: Some of what we are doing comes out of the excellent work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) on women in the armed forces, such as allowing people to feel that they can make a complaint about inappropriate behaviour and ensuring that inappropriate behaviour is dealt with outside the chain of command. The service complaints route used to go via the chain of command, which understandably caused all sorts of problems for people about who they complain to and whether they should complain to their boss about their behaviour. Part of that route is about saying, “If you feel something is inappropriate, you can make a proper complaint right through the system. If senior officers or officers are not acting on those complaints, not only will that affect their career, because the ombudsman can rule on that, but something can be done.” First, this is about upholding the standards we wish to have and making sure that unacceptable behaviour is dealt with there and then, on the spot. That is the first thing: to make it a welcoming environment.
The second thing is to make sure that when we are recruiting, or when people are in training, an appropriate level of training and support is given to those people. We must then make sure that the environment is equal all the way through. The same goes for married quarters and for living accommodation: people must be treated absolutely the same, without any discrimination at all. Ultimately, this is about getting more people to join, but it is also about those people who are serving feeling welcome and not having to come out every few hours or days.
The one thing I can tell the House, having been in an infantry regiment, is that the people who know you the best are the people you serve alongside. In those units, you will not have to come out every hour or every day;  you all know each other. What sticks you together is your friendship and your bond, and sometimes that is formed under fire.

Michael Fabricant: I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to the House today and for the tone in which he has delivered this statement. May I also tell him that the two friends of mine, one a former naval intelligence officer and the other a non-commissioned officer in the Army, who had to leave in tragic circumstances will both be very pleased with the apology that he and the Prime Minister have given on behalf of the state? Finally, I wonder whether the Defence Secretary would agree with something that a colonel in the Royal Marines said to me 25 years ago: “In a firefight, I would rather have a gay Marine alongside me who can shoot straight than a straight Marine who can’t.”

Ben Wallace: As a Scots Guard, I had better not make a comment on the Royal Marines. All I would say to my first Whip when I joined this House is that that is the point: the men and women of our armed forces all belong to a common endeavour, which is to keep this country safe. That was what was forgotten in all those years. What matters is the skill they bring to bear to deal with the enemy. As my hon. Friend says, I would much rather everyone shot straight.

Jim Shannon: I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s tone and the statement itself. Everyone in the House welcomes that, and the Government’s commitment is clear. Unfortunately, some  veterans have taken their own lives, and others have been discriminated against and been traumatised, and their health has deteriorated. Will he pledge to help those who have offered their all for this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but who have felt on their own for far too long?

Ben Wallace: The feeling of rejection that those men and women must have felt will stay with many of them all their lives, which is something we have to do our very best to help solve. It must have been awful for people to think that they were helping society, and society, at that time, telling them that they did not belong. Wherever they are, we should help to look after them and urge the regiments and the veterans associations—I am president of the Scots Guards Association in Lancashire—to reach out and ask them to rejoin the family if they feel excluded.
The tragedy of those who have taken their lives goes to the heart of the importance of the suicide strategy, which was raised at Prime Minister’s questions today. We must make sure that we are alert to the needs of those people who are taking their own lives and to any sign of rejection, and not just for the time that they are in the military.

Eleanor Laing: That concludes proceedings on the statement. The whole House appreciates the determination and sincerity with which the Secretary of State has come to the House today to make this statement himself. If this is his last appearance at the Dispatch Box, as he predicts it might be—one never knows—then the whole House will join me in wishing him all the very best.

Points of Order

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It would have been out of order for me to have asked a question during the statement, because I am afraid I was upstairs with some youngsters from my constituency at the beginning, but would it be in order for me to join the general approbation of the Secretary of State for Defence? I note that Elton John has said several times that he has done his last performance, but now that the Secretary of State for Defence is a gay hero, we will all be buying him some LGBT jackets, shirts and rainbow flags.
May I make a serious point about the right hon. Gentleman? He has been one of the very few people in this House who has been clear-sighted about Russia from the beginning—from the very outset. I feel sometimes that if the whole House had listened to him a bit more on Russia, Ukraine might have been in a better place than it is today.
If it is not too obsequious, may I add my obsequies to those of everybody else and praise the Secretary of State. Is that in order?

Eleanor Laing: The Chamber will appreciate that it is not in order at all, but I have exercised some leniency, as we come to the end of this long sitting period and approach summer, to allow the hon. Gentleman to make his remarks, because I know that he makes them with sincerity. I think that most of us would agree with him. It is not at all in order for me to say from the Chair that I agree with anything, but the Secretary of State knows that he leaves with the very good wishes of the whole of the House of Commons.

Sarah Owen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier this morning, a note on parliamentary headed notepaper and a mug was sent to the press lobby from the Scottish National party leader in Westminster, referring to China’s one-child policy. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is not what I came to Parliament to do, but sadly I have become used to calling out Sinophobia and misogyny in this place and I would be grateful for your guidance.
Official statistics confirm that as a result of the Chinese one-child policy there were 196 million sterilisations and 336 million abortions. It was a policy that broke families and led to infanticide, mostly of baby girls. In 2017, there were still 33 million more men than there were women in China. When can our diverse communities expect better from Members of Parliament, especially in understanding the history and trauma of other countries? Madam Deputy Speaker, is it appropriate for the SNP leader in Westminster to use parliamentary stationery to make crass political jibes that speak to Sinophobia and misogyny? Should we, especially the east and south-east Asian communities, not expect better on this issue?

Martin Docherty: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Maybe you could clarify two points for me. Is the British Labour party more rattled by a minor breach of the rules than it is by child poverty? And critically, in June 2018, the following was said:
“The cap reminds me of Communist China’s morally abhorrent one-child policy. Now, even the Chinese have abolished that; perhaps the Tories can bring themselves to follow China’s example and abolish the two-child cap.”
That was said by the deputy leader of the Scottish Labour party. So in answering those two questions, maybe we can find the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) the telephone number of the Labour sub-branch office in Glasgow.

Eleanor Laing: Order. Neither of these matters are points of order for the Chair. I appreciate that they are matters on which Members feel very strongly, and that they wish to find an opportunity to criticise and to debate what is right and what is wrong in this matter. It is not for the Chair to take any responsibility for Members’ correspondence with journalists, for example, but I would always, as the Speaker has done many times, urge that responsible language is used by Members in this House and outside this House. If the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) has a specific point about the use of parliamentary stationery, the way to deal with that is to write, with evidence, to Mr Speaker, rather than to raise it on the Floor of the House.

Preet Kaur Gill: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Please could you advise me of how I can get hold of a response to my letter to the Minister for Immigration and the international development Minister, dated 2 March—that is four and a half months ago—about the ballooning bill of aid for asylum hotels under their watch? Last year, in-donor refugee costs ballooned to £3.7 billion. The cost per person per night in asylum accommodation has gone up fivefold in four years and the case backlog still stands at 170,000. As we are a day from recess, can you advise me on how I can get a timely response, Madam Deputy Speaker?

Eleanor Laing: Will the hon. Lady clarify her question? Was the letter written personally by her on behalf of a particular constituent?

Preet Kaur Gill: Yes, of course—many constituents have written to me on this matter.

Eleanor Laing: No, I am asking the hon. Lady whether the letter was about a named, particular constituent.

Preet Kaur Gill: The letter was written in my capacity in my current role, but it was on behalf of many people who have written to me raising concerns.

Eleanor Laing: As has been said from the Chair many times—the Speaker has repeatedly said it—it is essential that Ministers answer correspondence in a timeous fashion; four and half months is too long to wait. However, if every time a Member of Parliament wrote a general letter about a general matter to a Minister and did not get an immediate response, they raised a point of order here in the House, then we would have points of order for two hours every day. It is not a point of order. I hope that the hon. Lady will get an answer to her letter, but it is not a point of order and Members should not come to the Chamber to complain about a general matter that is a matter for debate.

Offences against the Person Act 1861 (Sentencing Guidelines)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Maria Miller: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Sentencing Council to issue sentencing guidelines in respect of sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861; and for connected purposes.
I will start by saying what the Bill is not doing, to avoid any misunderstandings. It is not removing sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; it is not changing any of the regulations on abortion set out in the Abortion Act 1967 that allows, in strict and limited circumstances, abortions to take place, including time limits for those procedures.
I make absolutely no secret of wanting to see far more wide-reaching reform than the Bill delivers, taking women seeking abortion away from the sanctions of criminal law, and I believe a great many Members of Parliament agree with me on that too. I had drawn up that Bill and planned to bring it forward today, but that was not possible, despite widespread cross-party support, so that has to wait, yet again.
So what would this Bill do? This Bill relates solely to sentencing under the Offences against the Persons Act 1861, the criminal law underpinning abortion in the UK. The effect of the Bill would be to ensure that there is sentencing guidance in place for judges to use in court. Sentencing guidance from the Sentencing Council is entirely proper for Parliament to legislate on. While I would prefer complete reform, I also believe that, as parliamentarians, we have a duty to scrutinise how the current law is working and to make the changes that are possible when problems emerge. When it comes to abortion, we should not be surprised that having a 160-year-old law underpinning a medical procedure causes problems for the courts. The law has to evolve to better reflect modern-day Britain. It should be compassionate and applied with an understanding of the medical context of today.
At the moment, there is no such sentencing guidance in place, and, with little case law to draw on, we leave judges bearing the brunt of trying to interpret legislation agreed in this place more than 150 years ago, when the world of women’s health was a very different place. Sentencing guidance helps to ensure consistency in how the law is applied today. The council’s founding legislation, the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, is clear that the Sentencing Council must publicly consult on new guidance to ensure that professional and public views are properly taken into account and, where necessary, then adjusted.
We saw in the recent case of Carla Foster that the judge specifically cited the lack of guidance in his sentencing remarks. If sentencing guidance had been in place, perhaps Ms Foster would not have had to endure weeks of prison, away from her children, waiting for the Court of Appeal to decide yesterday that her initial sentence should be halved and that it should be a suspended sentence, meaning that she should not be in prison at all. Dame Victoria Sharp, one of the Appeal Court judges, called in her own words for “compassion not punishment”. If sentencing guidance had been in  place for the judge at the initial sentencing, it is possible that this heartbreaking situation could have been avoided altogether.
The measures in the Bill already enjoy widespread support. The shadow Leader of the House, whom I can see in her place and whom I informed that I would be referring to her, called for exactly this change just a few weeks ago and has been clear about the official Opposition’s support for sentencing guidelines. Following the sentencing of Carla Foster, she said:
“In the wake of this awful case, I hope that the Government will be in a position to take action, at least on sentencing guidelines. This is too important an issue to play politics on. Labour is willing to work with the Government.”—[Official Report, 15 June 2023; Vol. 734, c. 438.]
The Government have not brought forward such measures, because—they are absolutely clear on this—any changes on the law relating to abortion must be above party politics and come from the Back Benches. That is why I am standing here today, to get action—such as the action that the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) talked about in her remarks—for women up and down the country who are fearful when they read of the plight of Carla Foster; or who need to consult a doctor about abortion and may have been absolutely unaware of the sentencing guidance gap, or, indeed, of the criminal law that is in place. I hope that the hon. Lady’s support for sentencing guidance extends to my Bill, though of course I understand that it is an issue of conscience.
I am extremely grateful to those right hon. and hon. Members, from across the House, who have indicated their support for the Bill, including the Father of the House. Some have their own experience to draw on, while others have seen at first hand, through their constituents, how the current situation does not work. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who is in her place, and others have shown how distinct and deliberate steps are important in changing attitudes on abortion, and I applaud the work that she does. I believe that this Bill is another distinct step forward from where we are today and would see women given better certainty, while we wait for fuller reform to achieve agreement in the House.
I am also immensely grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the Mother of the House, for her full support and expert guidance in how to take forward this Bill with the Sentencing Council. I hope that the Sentencing Council agrees to meet us to consider a way forward with the responsible Minister, who I think may be the Minister sitting on the Front Bench.
It is worth dwelling on the context of the 1861 Act for a moment. The reason that law was passed in the first place was to protect women—women who were far more likely to die as a result of a barbaric abortion than during childbirth—at a time when women were forbidden by law from even taking part in that debate in Parliament. Today, things could not be more different: women can debate, and regularly do debate, women’s health issues. What is even more important is that we now live in a time when abortion is far less dangerous for women than giving birth, so there has been a complete change.
The Bill matters because the fair and equal treatment of women matters. Abortion is the only medical procedure in the UK subject to the criminal law. Women who find  themselves having an abortion outside the law, for whatever reason, deserve our “compassion not punishment”—to quote the words of that Appeal Court judge—and it is difficult to understand how society would ever be best served by placing a woman in prison after she had experienced a pregnancy loss for whatever reason. She deserves our support and compassion, not imprisonment. But these are matters for the Sentencing Council to consult and decide on based on expert knowledge.
The Bill I present to Parliament today is not a panacea for the significant differences between the law and medical opinion on abortion, and it does not pretend to be. But the Bill does demonstrate to those whom we expect to interpret the law that we understand that we make it very difficult for them. The Bill is a small step in the right direction to get a better balance between public opinion, medical opinion and the law. I hope that the House will unite to agree that it should proceed.
Our job as parliamentarians is to find solutions, not to define problems. It is to find common ground and to work together to establish consensus where it may not be obvious and easy to find. In the words of the prayers with which we start every session:
“laying aside all private interests and prejudices keep in mind”
our responsibility to
“seek to improve the condition of all mankind”—
and indeed of all womankind, too. Thank you.

Stella Creasy: I rise with great sadness to oppose this Bill for four very specific reasons, on behalf of many Members of this House who believe, like the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), that there is much agreement on the fact that there is a problem that needs to be resolved, but fear that this approach may end up making things worse.
I start by recognising and respecting the work of the right hon. Lady. I have been proud to stand with her on this issue on many different occasions over the years. None the less, our fear is that the Bill fails to solve the issue, and possibly makes it worse, by normalising the biggest problem of all. That is why we have  not received any representations in support of this approach from those working on these issues. The central problem that we face is not that there are no sentencing guidelines, but that there is sentencing at all. The Offences against the Person Act 1861 is not a foundation on which any sensible modern law on abortion can be made, because it is not about healthcare. It is legislation that also criminalises placing wood on a railway with intent to cause danger, casting stones on a railway carriage, obstructing a clergyman, and assaulting a seaman. Alongside that, it criminalises a healthcare decision.
We can be deeply opposed to abortion and still recognise that no other healthcare begins with an offence and then goes on to medical regulation. We can also be concerned about the conduct of a defendant, as in the recent case that sparked all of this. Resolute, as we all are, that there should be time limits on abortion, we can still think that the Offences against the Person Act should be repealed. We have other offences for those who seek to force women to have abortions, and for those who have abortions beyond the term limit.
My first reason to oppose this Bill is that sentencing normalises the fact that women continue to be prosecuted under this legislation and so investigated for a crime even if they do not end up in court. Sentencing guidelines would affect only those women convicted. Guidelines would do nothing to halt the growing number of women investigated for having an abortion, stillbirth or miscarriage under this law.
Freedom of information data shows us that there have been 67 prosecutions in the UK in the last 10 years, but many more women have been investigated. The Home Office tells us that, in 2021 alone, 40 women were investigated. We currently know of two live prosecutions—that is where there has been no decision on whether to charge the women under this legislation—but sentencing guidelines would not deal with the hostile atmosphere that women are facing. We can see that in the recent guidelines issued by the Chief Coroner on the need to report live births following determinations, which state:
“A lawful termination of pregnancy under the Abortion Act 1967 can trigger the coroner’s duty to investigate.”
That guidance means that bereaved parents could end up facing a coroner’s inquest, and entangled in the lengthy criminal justice system, because of the connection between reproductive loss and prosecution. That is why a 15-year-old girl who suffered a stillbirth at 28 weeks suffered a year-long investigation by the police, which was eventually dropped only after a post-mortem found that her pregnancy loss was due to natural causes. She is still under emotional pressure as a result of that.
There is no distinction in the law between reproductive loss that is self-induced and prosecutions of men who provoke a miscarriage, meaning that it leads to the potential prosecution of domestic violence victims. Because of this law, women across the country are having their medical records accessed and being interviewed because they have experienced baby loss, and because of how sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 Act frame how public agencies approach women.
My second argument is that, even if we just focus on keeping women out of prison under this outdated legislation, we are still equating abortion with a criminal act, such as damaging property, stalking or theft, by suggesting community sentences. Indeed, Carla Foster has a suspended sentence that involves 50 days of rehabilitation activity. A woman with a community sentence still has a criminal record. It is still classed as a conviction. It remains on the police national computer indefinitely and can be used in future criminal proceedings. It has to be declared to employers and financial institutions, and could prohibit future work with children. She could be subject to curfews, obliged to live at a particular address, prohibited from travelling overseas or forbidden from taking part in certain activities in certain venues. She could be disbarred as a solicitor. It could affect a Disclosure and Barring Service check, and the ability of employers to discriminate on the basis of criminal convictions means that women having abortions could be discriminated against. That approach reinforces the idea that there is shame in having an abortion rather than it being a choice.
Even if someone thinks that that is acceptable, my third concern is that, especially since yesterday’s successful appeal by Carla Foster, we do have case law on which sentencing can be based. We need, as the right hon. Member for Basingstoke said, for compassion, not  punishment, in the application of this. The Sentencing Council is an independent body, so there is no guarantee that it would agree with the approach that many of us would like to see, and that has been put forward today. It could open a can of worms regarding what the sentence could be. Frankly, the women currently facing a court case would not be helped by the Bill because of the length of time that it takes to develop sentencing guidelines. For motoring offences, it was 11 months. For animal cruelty, it was over a year. For perverting the course of justice—a recent one, in March 2023—it was also over a year.
My final concern is that looking at sentencing directly contradicts the call for decriminalisation, and the case for equalising the human rights of women in the United Kingdom. Women in Northern Ireland would never face a prosecution, or indeed an investigation, under the legislation because the law has been repealed there. I do not propose to divide the House on the Bill, although I know that there are many opinions about the way forward, because I recognise that behind it is an ambition that we all share, and the current situation is untenable. I cannot, however, support the Bill, and I know that many others cannot.
I urge the Government not to go down this path, but instead to enable the House to have a vote on the Back Benches, as the right hon. Member agrees that we should, on whether, as a matter of conscience, to equalise abortion rights across the United Kingdom, allowing the many of us who voted for such rights in Northern Ireland to extend them to our constituents, so that we can uphold the human rights of women everywhere. We  know that the public are with us, and that those who oppose abortion on principle will continue to do so whatever the proposal. We also know that the time for real courage and real change is now, because the women facing investigations will not be helped by sentencing guidelines. The women frightened that their rights are at risk need and deserve nothing less.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Dame Maria Miller, Sir Peter Bottomley, Ms Harriet Harman, Caroline Nokes, Sarah Champion, Wera Hobhouse, Tracey Crouch, Dame Caroline Dinenage, Matt Warman, Christine Jardine, Nickie Aiken and Theo Clarke present the Bill.
Dame Maria Miller accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 357).

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting-
(1) Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of David Rutley relating to Sanctions; and
(2) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Penny Mordaunt relating to All-Party Parliamentary Groups not later than 90 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on that Motion; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the business on that Motion may be entered upon and proceeded with at any hour, though opposed; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply—[Fay Jones].

Sanctions

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I beg to move,
That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2023 (SI, 2023, No. 713), dated 27 June, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29 June, be approved.
The regulations amend the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The instrument was laid on 29 June 2023 under powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The measures in the instrument, which entered into force on 30 June 2023, have been co-ordinated with our international partners, while refining the approach to accommodate the particular circumstances of the UK’s legal sector. By restricting access to additional services from the UK, they will contribute to increasing the pressure on Putin for waging his illegal and brutal war against Ukraine. The measures place further constraints on the Russian economy, and therefore Putin’s war machine. They add force to the largest, most substantial package of economic sanctions that Russia has ever faced.
The instrument delivers on the commitment made by the UK Government to ban legal advisory services on specified commercial activities. That will further hamper the ability of Russian businesses to operate internationally. The legislation will make it illegal for any person working in the UK, as well as all British nationals working abroad, to advise on or facilitate certain commercial activities that would be sanctioned by the UK Government if they involved a British national or entity, or were taking place in the UK. In practice, that will make it harder for Russia to benefit from the UK’s world-class legal expertise. That goes beyond prohibitions already in place, which cover a range of professional services, including accountancy, architecture and management consultancy. This latest measure demonstrates our determination to ratchet up pressure on Putin for continuing his illegal war.
Although the legislation will close down opportunities for Putin’s associates and supporters to benefit commercially from the UK’s legal expertise, it is important that we ensure that legal services can continue to be provided where they contribute to upholding the rule of law and compliance with our sanctions framework. By protecting the fundamental right to legal representation, we distinguish ourselves from Putin’s oppressive regime. By ensuring that legal advice can continue to be provided for the purposes of compliance with our sanctions framework, we enhance the effectiveness of our regulations and intensify the pressure on Putin.
Legal professionals are under a strict obligation to ensure that their services support their clients to be sanctions-compliant, and do not stray into enabling them to circumvent restrictions. It has become apparent, however, that the legislation can be interpreted as having the unintended consequence of prohibiting persons in the UK and British nationals abroad from providing legal advice to clients seeking to comply with the sanctions regimes of our international partners. It is not the intent of these regulations to prohibit that type of legal service. UK lawyers should be able to support their clients to be sanctions-compliant beyond UK law as we work closely with our allies to tighten the net on Russia’s economy.
We have looked at this issue thoroughly and, as an immediate response, we are working across Government and alongside representatives of the legal sector to implement a general licence that will make it clear that that type of activity can continue.

Chris Bryant: The Minister is addressing a point that the Law Society has made to quite a few of us, and I guess quite a few of us will be referring to it later in the debate. If this had been primary legislation, we would have tabled an amendment. Is it not normally better for us to do all the scrutiny of this kind of work on primary rather than secondary legislation? Then we can always help the Government to get it right first time.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: The hon. Gentleman is generous as ever in offering to assist us to make progress. I hope that, as we bring in the secondary legislation, it will be another step towards tightening the pressure on those who would wish to use legal representation for the wrong things.

Bob Neill: I welcome the Minister’s willingness to engage on the general licence; it is very important to the Law Society, and for good and sound reasons. We all share the policy objective, so will she perhaps agree to meet, at both official and ministerial level, with representatives of the Law Society so we can thrash out the exact detail and get it right?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I will be happy to do so. I know that we aim to have this in place in the coming days. As I said, we are working closely with the legal sector and are grateful for its constructive engagement on this important issue. I am happy to commit to my officials meeting the Law Society to hear its particular concerns and indeed, I have no doubt, offers of its views on how we can make the scheme as effective as possible.
Once we have issued the licence, we will consider whether amendments to the SI to address the issue are appropriate and necessary. We will do that in conjunction with the legal sector and bring such amendments forward, if needed, at the earliest opportunity.
As with all other sanctions, this latest package has been developed in co-ordination with our international partners. We will continue to work with the legal community to monitor the effects of the legislation to ensure that it is achieving its objectives. We will also continue to co-ordinate with our international allies to identify and address any gaps or loopholes that emerge in our respective sanctions regimes.
To conclude, this latest measure demonstrates our determination to target those who participate in or facilitate Putin’s illegal war of choice. Through our sanctions regime and those of our allies, Russia is increasingly isolated, cut off from western markets, services and supply chains. Key sectors of the Russian economy have taken a significant hit and its economic outlook is bleak. The UK Government will use actions to intensify the military and economic pressure on Russia until Putin ends his brutal invasion of Ukraine. We welcome the clear and continued cross-party support for this action and for the sanctions regime. I commend the regulations to the House.

Stephen Doughty: I thank the Minister for setting out the measures we are debating. As the House rises for recess later this week, I am pleased we are able to meet before that, not only to debate new and welcome sanctions measures, but to reiterate our unwavering commitment to and solidarity with Ukraine, its people and its sovereignty. The NATO Vilnius summit last week underscored the strength of feeling across our diplomatic and military alliances that we must stand with Ukraine in all measures—economic, military, humanitarian and diplomatic—until this war is won and provide the guarantees that it needs.
I am also pleased that the House had the opportunity last week to explore and debate the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report on illicit finance, the Government’s response, the need to crack down on dirty Russian money within our economy and the serious problems we have had with London as a location for that and the whole ecosystem that has facilitated it over many years. On these measures, I want to make it clear, as I have on many occasions, that we will support the Government where we think they have got things right on sanctions and we will not seek to divide this House on this measure.
However, I do have some questions for the Minister. More than 500 days into this conflict, it should not be potentially lawful for a UK legal services provider to support commercial activities that advance Russian state interests and the interests of those who support the egregious and barbaric war in Ukraine, just because said activity does not have a sufficiently tangible connection to the UK, due to the territorial application of the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. It must be the case that no UK person, or person in the UK, can provide legal advisory services to an activity that would be prohibited under our regime.
I hope the Minister can say why it has taken so long to bring forward this measure. I accept that the sanctions regime is a constantly evolving feast, and we have had this debate many times, but that is obviously a significant potential risk, so I hope she can explain what has happened with the timing.
I welcome the Minister’s clarification regarding a general licence and the discussions that will be had. I know that other right hon. and hon. Members have expressed, and will express, concerns about the ability to access legal advice for positive purposes, if I may put it that way. On the other hand, I have some questions regarding licences and exemptions that have been granted in the past, including for access to legal services, and the ministerial oversight of those.
One particular case was in January this year, when it came to light that the Treasury had issued special licences that allowed Prigozhin, the leader of the brutal Wagner Group, exemptions and licences to acquire legal support—in fact, I believe it was flown to him in Russia at the time—to sue his critics here in the UK. That is obviously completely unacceptable. I hope that the Minister can explain, given the questions that I and others have asked about that, what role Ministers are now taking in the issuing of exemptions and licences.
The Minister will be involved in developing the general licence that she talked about for legitimate purposes, but at the other end of the spectrum there are an  awfully large number of licences that have been granted. Perhaps she could write to me and to the House with a full list of licences and exemptions that have been granted and for what purposes, and clarify whether Ministers, particularly in her Department, now have oversight of those, or whether that is just being done by officials. These are significant matters and we do not want to see anything sneak through that is going to facilitate or aid Russian activities.
I would also like the Minister to explain how the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation is monitoring the utility of the various exemptions issued under the sanctions regime, and whether they are enhancing the regime or potentially, in some instances—I hope this is not the case—undermining it. The OFSI should be undertaking constant reflection on and refinement of the regime and ensuring that, while we have the strongest text for the sanctions, their actual application is being done in the most effective way to tackle the aggressor in this case.
While I am on the subject of exemptions and loopholes, in the last Committee debate that we had on such measures the Minister committed to write to me regarding some serious concerns I raised about third countries being used to avoid our sanctions regimes in a number of product areas. That would be interesting in terms of the services sector and the legal services we are referring to in this debate, but it also applies to a number of goods. I hope she can write to me before the recess with answers to those questions, because they are significant.
As the House is about to rise for recess, I reiterate the position of the official Opposition, the Labour party, to work with the Government in support of Ukraine, its security, its prosperity and its future, and to co-operate on measures against Russia and those who would aid and abet Putin’s regime. We must continue to do that and to see that Russia and all those who support Putin lose. Our sanctions regimes and the way they are applied are crucial to that. We must never again allow London to be part of an ecosystem of lawyers, accountants, company formation agents and others who have facilitated the very people behind the Russian regime and are ultimately aiding and abetting Putin.

Eleanor Laing: I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

Bob Neill: I welcome the tone and approach of the Minister’s remarks, and I fully understand and support the policy objectives of the regulation, as does every decent lawyer in this country. For completeness, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. We want the UK legal system to retain its reputation as an able, efficient and honest jurisdiction, which it is. However, it is important that we get the detail right, so, with apologies from one lawyer to another, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that, if I say the detail matters sometimes, there may be a little detail to raise with the Minister in the context of her very welcome assurance that she will meet, and have officials meet, to discuss what comes next. I appreciate that the regulations have—rightly—had to be developed at pace, and that we have sought to be aligned with our allies, but there are some bits to which further attention needs to be paid.
I am grateful to the Law Society of England and Wales for the briefing that it has sent to a number of hon. Members. Given that we all endorse the policy objective that Russia must never be allowed to gain from its barbaric and disgraceful invasion of Ukraine, and that Russian entities must never be able to gain from it, we must do it in a way that retains the ability of UK-based international law firms to advise, with the highest level of professionalism, on the way in which clients may wish to divest themselves of interests in Russia, for example, or on the risks or otherwise of potential transactions that might involve an element of a Russian entity of one kind of another. It is in everybody’s interest that they are able to do that, but I am concerned, as is the Law Society, that the wording of the regulations, however well intended—I think that they are totally well intended—may have the unintended effect of limiting it.
In particular, there is concern that the very broad language of the regulations is broader than that of our counterparts in the United States and the EU in terms of limitations. The Minister is absolutely right that we should align, so that is something we perhaps now need to revisit. Licensing may be one way, and a revised statutory instrument may be another—perhaps the two go together—to align the language
I will set out one or two of the practical consequences. The language of new paragraph 8A(1)(a)(i) to schedule 3J —I think I have got that right; it is all in the detail, Madam Deputy Speaker—is quite important. Essentially, it prohibits advice that facilitates or enables activity that would be prohibited if it were conducted in the UK or by a UK person—let us call it “UK-prohibited activity”. It then goes on to prohibit any advice in relation to, or in connection with, UK-prohibited activity. In that context, “advice” includes the provision of legal advice that involves—here is the rub—
“the application or interpretation of law”.
Well, that is pretty much what lawyers do, hopefully: they advise people about the application and interpretation of the law. Early advice is the best way to prevent people from getting into legal problems and prevent needless litigation. There is, I accept, an exemption covering advice, but, as the Minister will know, there is real concern that the exemption is narrowly drawn—too narrow, I would argue.
On the face of it, that means in practical terms that British companies cannot get advice from English and Welsh lawyers on whether their activity will comply with international sanctions regimes, for example. They could go to American lawyers for that. Many American-based law firms have entered the UK legal markets. It would be a bizarre situation if one could not go to the UK law firm for that advice but could go to the New York office of the American law firm. I do not think that was the intention behind the policy. We must ensure that the language reflects the intention.
In the same way, if, for example, an international company wants to know whether a specific activity that it is contemplating for perfectly good and legitimate commercial purposes is prohibited by UK, EU or US sanctions—all of which vary somewhat—the UK lawyers can answer on whether or not that activity is prohibited by UK sanctions, but once the lawyer has said, “Yes it is,” they are not then allowed to advise on whether it is prohibited by EU or US sanctions. That cannot be a sensible or practical approach, and it cannot be what the Government actually want to achieve.
The whole advantage of UK international law firms is, of course, that they have many multidisciplinary lawyers and people qualified in many jurisdictions. Our strength is that people come to us because we can advise on a range of law in a range of jurisdictions. At the moment, however, a lawyer would be committing an offence if they took the obvious step. Instead, they have to say, “Okay, it is illegal in the UK, but I cannot tell you whether it is illegal in the EU or the US.” That is clearly not a situation that anybody wants to see. The difficulty is that the language does not reflect the intention. Surely, giving such advice does not enable or facilitate unlawful activity. It allows a company to know whether, if it does the activity, it might infringe the law, and whether the law is applicable to it. The language does not reflect that policy intention as it stands.
Another example is that the advice exception in regulation 60DB(3) is limited to advice on compliance with sanctions, and not to other forms of compliance advice. The logic is that one seeks advice from one’s lawyer on the whole range of potential legal risks that one might run in taking a particular course of commercial activity. The facts will be the same, and may raise questions about sanctions compliance, but as it stands—this is of real concern to the Law Society—a UK lawyer could supply the client only with advice on sanctions, not on whether they comply with other criminal offences. The strict wording of that regulation would, on the face of it, criminalise lawyers giving advice on whether that same form of action falls foul not just of sanctions, but of anti- money-laundering, anti-bribery and export control laws.
Surely we want any UK lawyer to be able to give one-stop-shop, rolled-up advice on all the legal risks that might arise from that activity, but at the moment, once they have established the first part—that it falls foul of the UK sanctions regime—they cannot go on and do the obvious and common sense thing of saying, “And, by the way, you also fall foul of this, that and the other.” That cannot be the intention, but as it stands, that is where we could end up.
That is why the general licence is, in the short term, so important. Individual licences, which were referred to by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), have been tried in the past. Not only is there difficulty in how effective they are in policy terms, but there are practical difficulties as well.
That is where advice about disinvestment comes in, for example, because UK companies might very properly want to withdraw from transactions involving Russian entities or individuals. Surely we want UK lawyers to be able to advise them fully and frankly on how best to disinvest. But if they have either to be caught by the risk of a criminal sanction or to get an individual licence, we know that Russia—not a rule-of-law country, to put it mildly—is well able to take actions to sequester property and prevent the return of assets to British nationals and British companies in a way that we would never countenance in this House. When dealing with people of that kind, we do not have that leisure, frankly. Once a company has taken the decision to disinvest, they want to get the assets out quickly. Waiting for an individual licence would not make that possible. That is why a general licence, rather than individual licences, is important.
That is why it is important to sit down with the Law Society, hear the lived experience of law firms in the UK, and get the regime right so that it sticks. Regrettably, this war, and therefore the sanctions, may go on for longer than any of us would wish—however long it takes to get Ukraine its freedom and to get rid of that wretched regime in the Kremlin—so we must have something that will stand the test of time. That is why I am so anxious for the Minister to engage in detail with the Law Society about this.
I have a final example. We could have a situation in which an EU firm based in the UK can go to their Paris office for advice on different terms of legal trade from the UK office. That cannot be to the advantage of the UK legal system, and it does not help us to align with our allies.
I have greatly shortened the briefing that I received because everyone wants to get away for the summer recess. I hope I have flagged up some serious practical points. There is an issue of principle, but the detail matters. If we can work together to get that right, I hope we can come back to the House after the recess with the general licence and a revised approach to the SI, which will give us a permanent system through which to bear down on the evil of the Russian regime while enabling British lawyers, with their expertise, to play their part in that fight. At the moment, they would have one hand tied behind their back, which was not the Government’s intention.

Drew Hendry: It is always a pleasure to follow the knowledgeable hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). Given his legal expertise, I can now take three pages out of the speech I was going to deliver, and I hope the Minister was listening.
This is a serious issue. For the Scottish National party, our stance has always been clear, unambiguous, and unwavering: we vehemently support the principles of democracy, peace, and the rule of law, and we unyieldingly oppose any entity or individual that would act to undermine those bedrock principles. It is worth recollecting the context here. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was a blatant breach of those principles and an affront to the international community. The unjust and unprovoked aggression caused immense pain, loss, and destruction to the people and the critical infrastructure of Ukraine.
There is much more that the UK Government could and should do. We have heard from the Labour spokesman about the lack of action, in my view, about Progozhin, and the issue of dealing with third countries. As we have just heard, the details are important. The issue needs to be properly scoped, and the detail needs to be agreed as quickly as possible. Speed has been lacking in delivering some of the sanctions that are so greatly needed.
It is in that context that we put our support behind the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2023, which further the United Kingdom’s stance that Russia bears full responsibility for the damage it has wrought in Ukraine. This is not a matter of politics: it is a matter of basic human rights and justice. We believe that those who cause harm should be held  accountable and be made to pay restitution. By supporting the regulations, we are not just voting for sanctions: we are voting, ultimately, for justice for Ukraine.
We note and support the provision for a defence under section 68(1) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 relating to the prohibition on exportation of certain goods to non-government controlled areas. That thoughtful addition will ensure that sanctions do not inadvertently penalise innocent parties, and provides a fair balance in extraordinary circumstances. Again, we await the legal details.
Since the start of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, the SNP has consistently backed the UK Government’s sanctions regime against the Kremlin. We see the regulations as a natural, necessary and meaningful extension, albeit more can and should be done. In conclusion, the SNP supports the regulations. We stand for justice, for peace, and for holding those accountable who disregard those values. We stand with Ukraine and will, as indicated, support the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2023.

John Howell: I want to comment briefly on the Minister’s remarks about international partners and our relationship with them. The Council of Europe recently held a summit in Reykjavik, which the UK attended, and we also signed the resulting declaration. The Council of Europe has always seen sanctions as a rule of law issue, because Russia has acted illegally in invading Ukraine. The Council of Europe has had a tremendously robust response, not least from me: I was the first member to call for Russia to be expelled from the Council.
The Reykjavik summit asked member states to support it on the rule of law issue, by bringing legislation to make sure that the changes happened. I am glad to see that we have done that, and we are making a very good change. I hope that the Minister will include the Council of Europe among the international partners with which she will maintain contact, because it has a vast amount of expertise. It is not just me, there are many distinguished members who have enormous expertise in dealing with Russia and these issues. I hope that she will both use that and feed into it, because there is a lot we can do—subject to what we have just heard—to set a model that other countries can use.

Chris Bryant: It is a joy to follow the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell). Since we have been in valedictory mood today, with the Secretary of State for Defence earlier, it is a sadness that the hon. Gentleman will not be with us in the next Parliament. Obviously, I want Labour to take every seat in the land, so I would not want to go too far in that. None the less, the hon. Gentleman has been admirable in his work in the Council of Europe in this regard and on human rights generally across the continent. Our membership of the Council of Europe is an important part of the structure of human rights across Europe. It is one of the reasons I support our remaining in the European convention on human rights and adhering to the European Court of Human Rights, which I understand to be a necessary aspect of our membership.

John Howell: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I hope to stay in the role for another year.

Chris Bryant: Long may he persist.
I support the measure before us today. The Minister knows that I and other Members have campaigned for as robust a set of sanctions as possible. I have been critical sometimes of the processes we have used to get there. Oliver Bullough wrote a splendid book that lays out why it is important to deal not only with financial instruments but with some of the people who have effectively enabled others to bypass sanctions regimes and hide their money from prying eyes in the UK.
It was a joy to hear the extremely learned hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), not least because he referred to “every decent lawyer”. I detected a characteristic wink at that point, because not every lawyer is decent, m’lud. I gently suggest—

Bob Neill: rose—

Chris Bryant: Now look what I have done.

Bob Neill: I have prosecuted some less than decent lawyers over the years, so I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. But he knows just how good the English legal system is collectively, and I know he will want to recognise that.

Chris Bryant: I have great admiration for lawyers, especially those who advise me, as is occasionally necessary—[Laughter.] It is a serious point: if the UK stands for anything in the world, it is the rule of law. The hon. Gentleman and I have often had to join cause on occasions when we have worried that the Front Benches have not quite seen things in exactly the same way as we do.
I will not rehearse all the arguments, which were laid out so beautifully for the hon. Gentleman and others in the Law Society’s note. He understood it better than I did. The important point is that all British businesses should be withdrawing from Russia. It is extraordinary that any British businesses are still doing significant business in Russia. I do not wish to make any partisan points, but I think it is still true that Infosys has a substantial presence and has not managed to wind down its presence in Russia. That is worrying. Mantrac is certainly still operating in Russia, and some of the money it has earned there will have made its way into its recent £5 million donation to the Conservative party. We should be doing more due diligence about these matters.
I do not understand how Unilever can still claim that it is only selling Magnum ice creams in Russia because they are an essential item. They might be an essential item for somebody who is going to watch the “Barbie” movie later this year—that sort of fits—but in all seriousness, I honestly do not think that Unilever should still have a significant presence, or any presence, in the Russian Federation. Its remaining there is a problem. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the point about British companies being able to advise on how to disinvest as fast as possible. If the regulations were to make that more difficult, that would be a bit of an own goal on our part.
I have some other, very minor, points to make. One is that the sanctions regime is now getting very complex. These are No. 3, the third regulations in this Session. I know that this Session of Parliament has gone on a bit—one could argue that the whole of this Parliament has gone on a bit, maybe a bit too long—but we are  relying on lots of statutory instruments and secondary legislation. The amount of such legislation has grown enormously over the past 20 years, not just since 2010 but before then, and there is a danger that it is very difficult for lawyers to keep up with what the law is. Of course, there is no excuse for lawyers to say that they do not know what the law is, but none the less, these regulations came into force on 30 June—they are already in force. That is the problem with the way in which we are legislating these days. When there is a Labour Government, I hope that we will use secondary legislation much less frequently, because we need to be able to amend legislation on the Floor of the House or in Committee to make sure that Governments do not make silly mistakes.
I note the subtle difference in the exemption that exists for advice. Of course, advice can cover a multitude of sins and is sometimes designed to do so, but I note the subtle difference between the exemptions granted in the UK, those granted in the US and those granted in the EU. If I heard the Minister correctly, she attributed those to the different legal systems that exist in those jurisdictions. That may be true, but I would like her to expand on that and explain why it is necessary for us to make distinctions in that way. Otherwise, the point made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is absolutely right: an international law firm could just say, “All right, I’m popping over to Paris, Madrid, Berlin or wherever for the weekend, and we will do it from there.” That would be a mistake. I also think that sanctions need to be a stiletto blade, not a blunderbuss, if they are to be truly effective in peeling away support from Vladimir Putin within the Russian Federation.
In a previous debate on sanctions, I referred to the former leader of UKIP. Let me be absolutely clear: I have had no correspondence of any kind—electronic, in writing, or digital—with Coutts bank about him, or for that matter about anybody else, because I do not have many constituents who bank with Coutts. I have no idea why Coutts has closed his bank account, but I should have been more careful with the words that I used a year ago. The figure I gave was for his total income. I think he himself has stated that he was paid for his appearances on Russia Today, which is of course a part of the Russian state, and he has made clear his respect for Vladimir Putin as a nationalist. However, I do not think that the figure I gave was anywhere near the accurate figure, so I apologise if I have inadvertently misled the House. I had no intention of doing so, and I hope that puts the record straight. I had hoped that this afternoon’s debate was going to include a debate on the Procedure Committee’s report into allowing all Members of the House to correct the record, rather than just Ministers, but that option is not yet available to us. As such, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have rather stretched your generosity in making these comments.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I thank all hon. Members who have made contributions this afternoon. I will do my best to address the questions they have raised, and as ever, where I do not have the information to hand, I will ensure that I write to them.
This latest measure reflects the reality that legal advisory services can play a fundamental role in facilitating border trade and investment, and that by restricting  those services, we will further constrain the Russian economy and Putin’s war chest. While we have worked to ensure that Russia cannot access our legal expertise in relation to certain commercial activities, we have not hindered work, but have helped to provide judicial rights and access to justice. We have also not hampered legal advice that facilitates compliance with our sanctions network and framework, and we are working to ensure that advice in relation to compliance with the sanctions laws of our international partners is also permitted.
I absolutely commit to write to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) about the questions he has raised, including his important point about third-party circumvention risks. Discussions and work are ongoing with a number of colleagues; I have been talking with colleagues internationally about how we tackle those risks and find tools to address the enforcement challenge they present.
As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) has brought his wisdom to the debate about this important piece of legislation. I will ensure that he and the Law Society are able to discuss their concerns about the detail of the general licence in the very near future, conscious—as a number of colleagues have said—of the timeframe over which we are keen to move it forward. He made the important point that access to legal advice should be taken early to reduce the risk of error or breach. We must ensure that the general licence will work in practice, providing the right support while constraining those who wish to abuse the system.
I put on record that the continued leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) at the Council of Europe is hugely welcomed and appreciated by all Members across the House. I thank him for his offer of support and for sharing the expertise that sits in the Council of Europe. As we continue to work in what is a complex and, sadly, ever-changing and ever-developing environment, we continue to get ahead of those who wish to abuse the system.

Stephen Doughty: It was good to hear the Minister confirm again that she is going to work on the issues that have been raised about the general licence. However, can she say whether Ministers such as herself are actively involved in the issuing of all licences and exemptions in relation to our sanctions regime, or is it still just being done by officials without ministerial sign-off?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: Obviously, the hon. Member would not expect me to discuss the detail of matters that are live and ongoing. However, we work as a team and across Government: while it is the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office that holds the pen, and it is me at the Dispatch Box today, the legislation, work, management and enforcement issues are covered across Whitehall. We all work together very closely on  those issues, and as I say, it is a live and continually changing environment as we keep track of what we are trying to achieve. One part of that, of course, is ensuring that enforcement can be monitored. The commitment of £50 million following the integrated review refresh was an important part of that and it will help us build even stronger enforcement tools to ensure we make the most effective use of the sanctions we bring in.
This, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the latest edition of our package of sanctions. We will continue to use sanctions to keep up the pressure until Putin ends his horrific, senseless war and Ukraine is allowed its territories back to live peacefully once again.

Chris Bryant: Will the Minister allow me to intervene before she sits down?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: Yes, I will.

Chris Bryant: I would just like to put on the record how much we respect and admire the team of roughly 150 people who work in the sanctions group. It is not easy work—it is tough to get it right—and they are magnificent. Is that in order?

Eleanor Laing: That is in order.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind and thoughtful intervention. They are an extraordinary team—they are working flat out all the time. Sadly, until such time as Putin loses this war, we will continue to work flat out to ensure that we have as many sanctions tools available to us as possible. In the meantime, I hope and trust that the House will support the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2023 (SI, 2023, No. 713), dated 27 June, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29 June, be approved.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Official Statistics

That the draft Official Statistics Order 2023, which was laid before this House on 19 June, be approved.

Electricity

That the draft Electricity Capacity (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 12 June, be approved.—(Steve Double.)
Question agreed to.

All-party Parliamentary Groups

[Relevant document: Guide to the Rules on All-Party Parliamentary Groups approved by the Committee on Standards.]

Eleanor Laing: I call the Minister, Mr Johnny Mercer. [Interruption.]

Johnny Mercer: I beg to move,
That this House approves the Eighth Report of the Committee on Standards, Session 2022-23, HC 228, on All-Party Parliamentary Groups: final proposals and, with effect from 16 October, the Rules for All-Party Parliamentary Groups contained in the Annex of that Report, subject to any transitional arrangements agreed by the Committee on Standards.
I think I heard the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) shout “Really?” from a sedentary position, at the thought that I am here for this debate, but he must understand that I have had a deep and long interest in all-party parliamentary groups.
APPGs play a valuable role in our parliamentary system. They bring together parliamentarians and external experts to further cross-party consideration of important issues. It is paramount that any new rules do not deter APPGs, particularly those that are self-funded, from meeting, because these forums aid the development of public policy on matters that otherwise may not be considered by Parliament. Rather, the new rules should seek to increase transparency, limit undue influence and secure the parliamentary estate, while allowing APPGs to perform their vital functions.
The Government are grateful to the Standards Committee for reviewing the rules governing these groups to ensure that they remain fit for purpose. It is right that we give existing APPGs an opportunity to comply with the new system, so I am grateful to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for outlining the need for transitional arrangements to implement the rules.
APPGs are able to play an important role in Parliament by virtue of their informal status, but I believe these groups should be held to high standards and operate in keeping with the broader principles shared across the Houses, which are that Parliament should be transparent, protected from undue influence, and boast a reputation that is cherished at home and envied abroad. The reforms being proposed represent an important step towards this objective, and as per the Government’s response in June, we welcome the Committee’s consideration of whether the rules on foreign contributions could be strengthened at a later stage. I look forward to this debate, and I commend the motion to the House.

Eleanor Laing: I call the shadow Leader of the House.

Thangam Debbonaire: I rise to support the motion. I must confess that I was a little taken aback at the brevity of the Minister’s speech, but the points he made were absolutely right. We are here to support the Standards Committee’s work. I thank the Leader of the House for bringing forward this important motion, and I join the Minister in his full thanks to the Standards Committee and of course its Clerks, who we can see have put in a lot of work.
This work follows on from previous investigations, such as the report published in 2013. I of course agree with the Minister that this motion will help to safeguard Parliament from various things that could be improper, such as improper lobbying and hostile state actors, and that is why I support it. The Standards Committee is right to have conducted the inquiry now, because the current rules for APPGs were last agreed by this House almost 10 years ago.
APPGs have a long history, and they have made a significant contribution to the life of Parliament. I understand from the 2013 report that the first, created in 1939, was the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. It was established to help with the war effort and focused on the big scientific issues of the day over many years; of course, it still thrives. It is a great example of the longer-term focus that APPGs can have, compared with the shorter-term thinking of many Governments.
Another example of the value of APPGs is the APPG on autism, with which I had the pleasure of being involved for many years while on the Back Benches. I pay tribute to its former chair, dear Dame Cheryl Gillan, whom we all loved and miss very much. It is still one of the biggest and most active groups in Parliament, and much of that was down to Dame Cheryl, with her dedication and her warm and welcoming style, which drew in Members from all political parties.
That is what APPGs at their best can do. They effectively bring together and organise supporters of a particular issue or country from across both Houses and all parties. They provide space for longer-term policy development and a strong voice to Back Benchers, and they therefore have a rightful place in our Parliament.
However, the Committee found that APPGs can pose a
“significant risk of improper access and influence by commercial entities or by hostile foreign actors”.
Looking down the list of APPGs, as I did ahead of this debate, there has been a significant rise in their number since we last looked at their governance, which makes it harder for the House to monitor their practices. The Committee noted the
“real possibility of APPGs having been set up at the suggestion of, and as a result of lobbying by, a commercial interest.”
That is clearly bad practice and—this is the very thing the Standards Committee has been working so hard to prevent with its work in other areas—it could enable commercial entities to, in effect, buy access to or the influence of parliamentarians and decision makers. Throughout its inquiry, the Committee undertook extensive consultation, received written and oral evidence and came to clear conclusions, and we have to act now in support of the motion to strengthen how we run APPGs.
I think the two-tier approach to governance and regulation proposed by the Committee strikes the right balance. It safeguards Parliament where there is the greatest risk—for example, focusing on those with external financial benefits of over £1,500 in a calendar year, and having a lighter touch on those that do not. I also support the recommendation that the number of APPGs an MP can be an officer of is limited, as should be the number of officers per APPG. It is also right that we take a stand and say that no secretariat should be allowed to be provided or funded by a foreign Government,   and that external members of a secretariat should not be granted parliamentary passes. I think I have understood the report correctly there.
This is about us, the House and Parliament clamping down on the risk of improper lobbying. For the record, I am not speaking from any particular experience of it having happened, but from the risk that it could, and that is very important. We all have a role to play in maintaining Parliament’s security, and I urge Members and secretariats to do their bit and to follow the new rules carefully. I think APPGs should welcome them, because they are a great opportunity to showcase that we know how to do our work properly and professionally, which can only increase the respectability and credibility of APPGs.
The Committee has said that it will provide an updated guide on APPGs, which will consolidate all the existing guidance. I think it is an excellent idea to have that in one accessible place. I suggest that it is sent in physical form to every MP’s office and that copies are made available in the Vote Office and the Library, as well as online.
Finally, I would like to see these changes as just part of a package of reforms to restore trust in politics, and in Parliament in particular. The Leader of the House and I have a shared desire to increase the transparency of ministerial interests and, for example, to make information on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests more accessible. Will the Minister convey to the Leader of the House that I reiterate my offer to support her in bringing forward these reforms as soon as possible? In the meantime, I urge everyone to support the motion if the House divides.

Tim Loughton: I think I have to declare an interest because—I have totted them up—I am the chair of nine APPGs at the moment.

Chris Bryant: Ten.

Tim Loughton: All right, the figure may be 10 if I have missed one out, but, in hurriedly putting some notes together, I could remember nine.
I chair the APPG for children, which is a substantial group. Over many years, it has produced some reports that have led to changes in the law, and I do not think that anybody is going to challenge the legitimacy of that. I chair the 1001 critical days group, or the APPG on conception to age two—first 1001 days. That was the genesis of the Government’s “best start” policy, brought in by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), which has played an important part in early years provision. I chair the APPG on archaeology, which briefs parliamentarians on changes to the law regarding the influence of archaeology on the environment, agricultural matters and cultural matters, and it is very active.
I chair the British Museum APPG, which met only yesterday. It has an important job, given that it was this House that established the British Museum back in the 18th century. When there are serious challenges ahead—the future of collections such as the Elgin marbles, for example—this House must have a voice. I chair the  APPG for Armenia, which I took on reluctantly from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) because he was a Minister again. I was told there would be very little going on, and within a few weeks Azerbaijan invaded Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia became a very hot topic. I have virtually weekly conversations with the ambassador and others on this subject, so it is an active group.
I chair the reformed Wilton Park group, an important foreign affairs melting pot financed by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I chair the all-party group on mindfulness, which has done so much good for the mentality, mental health and camaraderie of Members in this House since its formation about 10 years ago, with the strapline of “disagreeing better”; that is very relevant, and it is one of the more active groups. I chair the all-party group on Tibet, which has been absolutely essential to the whole issue of China’s abuse of human rights not just in Tibet but in Xinjiang and beyond.
I chair, too, the all-party group on photography. I took that role on after the murder of our former colleague Sir David Amess. Because I was the next named officer, very shortly after his murder I was, disgracefully, contacted by the registrar to say, “You must have an EGM within 30 days to appoint a new chair,” completely oblivious to the circumstances of the loss of our previous chair. That was how I got to take on that role. The group exists largely to organise the annual photography exhibition, which Mr Speaker very kindly supports and will be attending again later in the autumn. So those are my interests—and there is apparently a tenth one that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) will tell me about. I will therefore automatically be caught under these rules, so I have a double interest.
I do not criticise the report, although I disagree with some of its findings, but I think it has gone largely under the radar and many Members are going to be very surprised if and when it goes through that they will be impacted. I absolutely take the point from my right hon. Friend the Veterans Minister, who I am delighted is here to defend these measures today, that the all-party group system is an important part of Parliament—the report itself says that as well—and that new rules should not deter all-party parliamentary groups. I am afraid they will, however, for some good reasons and for other, unintended not-so-good reasons.

Peter Bottomley: May I, through my hon. Friend, invite the Minister before he winds up to read pages 55 to 74 of the “Guide to Rules” and see how long that is going to take and how sensible it is?

Tim Loughton: All right then, I will, but my concern is that there has been very little profile for this report and study. I notice that only one Member of Parliament submitted written evidence and only one gave formal evidence to the Committee, and I cannot see that there were any submissions or calls to give evidence face to face from any chairs of all-party groups, let alone multiple chairs of all-party groups.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Tim Loughton: But the Chairman of the Standards Committee is probably about to correct me.

Chris Bryant: Yes, I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the second round. We had a first report, for which quite a lot of people submitted evidence—both members of the public and Members of Parliament—and we also did a survey of all Members, which a large number responded to. We had other submissions as well, and various Committee Chairs appeared before us.

Tim Loughton: I am referring to the second report because we are discussing the second report. Because there was quite a gap between this study being initiated and this final report being issued, with final recommendations with imminent implications, many people thought this would not happen and might be kicked into the long grass. We all have to take responsibility if we have not noticed things, but the fact that very few people took part in the second report suggests there was a large degree of ignorance that it was taking place.
I agree that there is a problem: there are too many all-party groups—over 800—and I came to that conclusion some years ago when I was invited to the inaugural meeting of the all-party group on meetings. That was not a joke; it did get established—although I do not know whether it is still going or whether it has just had one big meeting right from the start. There are a number of all-party group subjects that clearly stretch credibility, and the fear is that too many of them are in danger of being hijacked by lobbying groups, commercial trade bodies and other interests to give them a platform in Parliament that they otherwise would not be able to get. I absolutely understand that that is a problem and something needs to be done about it. That demonstrates the case for making it harder to set up APPGs in the first place and having stricter rules for the way they operate and their transparency. Everything in the report on transparency, including financial transparency and having a much better check on financial contributions or freebies to certain Members, is essential. I have no issue with any of that and will certainly support it.
On the issuing of passes, none of the groups I am involved in have, to the best of my knowledge, issued passes to any outside bodies, which I think absolutely goes beyond the pale. I agree, too, with having an annual income and expenditure statement and an annual report. Those are all sensible recommendations, and there might be a compendium of all the activities that go on through all-party groups, which would be a good selling point in highlighting why the all-party groups are an important part of this House and the work they do.
Many all-party groups, including many I am involved in, commission reports. In some cases, we act as quasi-Select Committees to take evidence and produce reviews that are intended specifically to influence Governments and political parties and feed into legislation. They get publicity and are generally a good thing.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman betrays something I have worried about for some time when he refers to quasi-Select Committees, because APPGs do not have the authority of the whole House. It is a really important distinction that they are not constituted like Select Committees or any other Committee of the House. We have striven very hard to make that important distinction, which is why a specific rubric has to be put on any APPG publication saying it is not from a formal Committee of the House.

Tim Loughton: That is absolutely right, but although they are not Select Committees they can adopt a Select Committee style in taking evidence in order to produce reports. The Select Committee system works really well. I have sat on the Select Committee on Home Affairs for nine years, and those Committees are one of the strengths of this House, but they cannot cover everything. The all-party groups can drill down into more specialised, niche issues that a Select Committee would never have the time or capacity to take on, in order to produce a report on something specific. A few years ago the all-party group for children produced a report on stop and search by police of young children. We took some very important evidence and produced a report with recommendations that led to a change in guidance. So there was a very clear role for doing that group, and the then Select Committee on Home Affairs did not have the time or remit to be able to cover the issue. We produced a valuable report that had a clear implication at the end of it. So all of those things are good, which is why we do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It is sensible to have a two-tier approach for groups that have outside funding, but that funding includes benefits in kind. The National Children’s Bureau is the secretariat to the all-party parliamentary group for children. It does not give us any money. It will organise receptions occasionally to promote our work, it will pay the hire fee for one of the rooms here, for example, and it gives us its time for free, which is a benefit in kind, but none of us receives any money or any perks because of that. The NCB would certainly be caught by this measure, and so would a lot of smaller groups and charities acting as secretariats.
On groups having a minimum of four officers rather than the unlimited amount at the moment, I have been involved with groups that have had large numbers of officers. We do not necessarily need so many, but four is too few. One strength of all-party groups is in the name: they are all-party groups. One wants to get as many parties represented as possible, including in the Lords, as groups are made up of Members of both Houses. To limit them to four officers may limit representation to only two parties—I think it would still apply that they would have to have an Opposition Member as an officer—would not give us a broad spread, so I do not understand the logic of having just four officers.
On limiting each individual Member to being an officer of only six APPGs, I would instantly fall foul of that. In some cases, it may be an excuse for me to be able to say, “I’m very sorry, I can’t be a chairman of that anymore” and I can stand down. But the groups I have taken on—I have given up others in the past, and perhaps there are too many—are on subjects in which I have a strong interest, are active and I think serve a good purpose for the House that I would not be a part of otherwise. So I instantly have a problem. If the new rules are coming in on 16 October, subject to any transition rules of which we know no details—the motion states they will come in when we come back after the conference recess—how is that going to work? The Chairman of the Standards Committee is about to tell me how it is going to work, which may delete my next paragraph.

Chris Bryant: It might be best if the hon. Gentleman waits until I make my speech, because I will lay it all out very clearly. It is printed in the documents, but groups  will have to have had an AGM or an extraordinary general meeting, which they can do virtually or by correspondence if they want to, by 31 March next year.

Tim Loughton: Therein lies the problem. There is no common year end for all APPGs. We had the AGM of the all-party parliamentary group for photography at the beginning of this week, because yesterday was the end of our year when we had to do that by. There is another group for which I have another two months to hold it. After 16 October, when the AGMs start coming up, which groups do I then have to drop to take me down to six or below? It may be ones that I do not necessarily want to drop.
The point is, why are we bringing in this change at the tail end of a Parliament? This is quite a significant change and the obvious thing, surely, is to bring it in in the next Parliament, when none of the groups will exist until they are formed again if there is sufficient interest and a sufficient number of Members interested. There may be a larger number of Members required to set them up—that is a better way of doing it. At their genesis, APPGs, whether they are renewing from a previous Parliament or are genuinely new groups, need to justify the need for setting up that group. That could involve a higher threshold of Members needing to sign the form and somebody scrutinising in more detail whether it is a credible and legitimate APPG that will serve some positive purpose for the House.

Peter Bottomley: This may be slightly unconventional, but what we are dealing with actually matters to the House. Would it be possible, during this debate, for the Minister and the Whip to consult with the Leader of the House, the official Opposition and the Chair of the Standards Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), to see whether it is possible for us not to make a decision on the motion today, but to come back to the issue in September? That would still allow whatever timescale is needed, and would allow more MPs to be aware of the implications.
We also have to hear from the Chairman of the Standards Committee, which will tell us more, but it might be sensible if the Government, the Opposition and the SNP considered not coming to a decision, having the debate and then coming back in September when minds will be clearer and more MPs know what is going on.

Tim Loughton: The Father of the House, my constituency neighbour, makes a very helpful suggestion. I do not understand the rush in any case. As the motion stands, I cannot support it. It would be a bit unusual if we had to force a Division on it— I am not one who usually likes to have Divisions on reports by the Standards Committee. There is a need for change—I absolutely agree—but I think we are going to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There will be damage and harm done to APPGs, which is specifically what the Minister says he does not want to happen and goes against the thrust of a report that wants APPGs to continue to play their very important role.
There are other details in the new rules, for example putting up the quorum for an AGM from five to eight. We all know it is often difficult to get five MPs to attend  a meeting to form a quorum because of the competing priorities in this place, and unwitting MPs are literally dragged in from the cafés to boost numbers. Again, I am not entirely sure what that is aiming to achieve. We have the idea of having outside chairs to chair these AGMs, but who will those people be? Will Mr Speaker have to create another pool of chairs or whatever? Again, I will leave that for the hon. Member for Rhondda, if he is going to explain more in his speech.
In conclusion, I support reform of the all-party groups, because there has been abuse, they are open to abuse and we do not need as many as there are. However, we do need a great many of them and we need greater transparency in how they operate. I fear that some of the detail around the implementation of these rules, though well intended, will undoubtedly have the result that many APPGs will not be able to continue in their current form, and this House will be at a loss for it. That is why I air those points in good faith.
Having had some experience of being chair or holding other offices of all-party groups over the years, I can say that the report is a good report, but in its detail it is still lacking. I would like the Minister and others to agree that further work needs to be done to come back with a more suitable solution. Preferably, the whole lot will be put into the next Parliament, which will probably not be that far away, so that we can start afresh without people involved in all-party groups now being unwittingly penalised for it.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

Deidre Brock: I had better start by declaring an interest, in that, although I am not a chair of an APPG, I am a member of a number of APPGs, several of which I am an officer for. The APPGs I am part of include the APPG on Malawi, the APPG on immigration detention, the APPG on HIV and AIDS, the APPG on Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, and the APPG on electoral campaigning transparency, to name just a few.
I agree that APPGs play a significant role in the functioning of this place. As rightly stated by the Standards Committee, they keep Members informed on a wide range of topics and provide a platform for diverse groups that might otherwise be excluded from the political system to present their arguments to engaged parliamentarians. I can think, for example, of the excellent work by the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, which I joined after being contacted by constituents whose family lives had been devastated by that scandal.
It is important for our democracy that Members engage with broader society and address topics of wider public interest, but it is clear that the current APPG system lacks sufficient transparency and oversight. The existing rules are not stringent enough. Currently, all APPGs must be registered and provide funding details, but many do not produce or make readily available a detailed breakdown. Numerous APPGs have routinely broken transparency rules by failing to disclose their financial records or to provide them upon request. That lack of accountability can allow for undisclosed private donors to exert influence.
The SNP supports strengthening the rules at this point to prevent any undue influence from state actors, commercial entities or dark money through APPGs, and we back the proposals to do so at the earliest opportunity. It is vital that we know who funds APPGs to understand where the influence lies and who is driving the agenda.
Many APPGs operate perfectly legitimately and with clear transparency and oversight, but those with more opaque funding streams could mean Members being unduly influenced by those in the private sector or even hostile state actors, risking corruption and endangering democracy through inadequate scrutiny. Analysis by The Guardian and openDemocracy in 2022—I pay tribute to their work on this—found that more than half of the £25 million-worth of donations to APPGs since 2018 has come from the private sector. Over the past four years, for example, arms manufacturers have contributed £256,000 in cash, services or a combination to APPGs, and significant donations have been made by large companies such as Facebook, Huawei and British American Tobacco. Private health and social care companies have donated more than £1 million to several APPGs where health-related issues were discussed, with the funding increasing every year.
In considering the risks that may be associated with groups accepting financial benefits, the Committee’s suggestion of a two-tier approach appears reasonable. I also welcome the report’s recommendation that all APPGs should publish an annual income and expenditure statement. Although they are currently obligated to provide accounts on request, half of the 190 APPGs approached by openDemocracy failed to do so. The Committee’s proposed 28-day time limit for providing accounts therefore seems sensible. The additional rules applying to groups that receive outside financial benefits totalling over £1,500, which include producing the annual report at the end of the year and AGMs being chaired externally—I look forward to the Chair of the Standards Committee providing more details on the make-up of those chairs—also seem justified. The report also indicates that there are simply too many APPGs, which makes it challenging to ensure adherence to House rules.
May I suggest that membership lists should be updated far more regularly when MPs join and leave APPGs? I have experienced the frustration of trying to remove myself from an APPG and finding, months later, that my name still appeared on that list. I wonder whether thought could be given at some stage—perhaps the Standards Committee is looking at this—to a more centralised administration system, so that MPs and the public can access more accurate and up-to-date information about membership details and, indeed, how active a group is.
Parliament will always be a target for hostile foreign states, but better regulation and transparency around APPGs can ensure that they continue to make a positive contribution. Of course, country APPGs help to promote understanding, co-operation and cultural and economic partnerships between the UK and other nations, but evidence suggesting that some foreign Governments may be exploiting APPGs to promote their views should raise alarm bells across this place. That also emphasises the need for greater regulation. The Committee’s proposal that groups should not be permitted to have a secretariat either provided or funded by a foreign Government  seems appropriate. It is certainly right that group officers should apply due diligence as to whether a foreign Government may be the eventual funder of a secretariat or other benefit. I note the Government’s support in particular for that recommendation. I wish that they were a little more willing to require greater due diligence on political funding from unincorporated associations but that, no doubt, is for another day’s battle.
The Prime Minister spoke about his Government’s mission to ensure integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level. APPGs perform a key role, but action in this area is clearly necessary to live up to those values and make this place more transparent. I thank the Committee—and the Clerks who support it—for all its work. I know that it has been some effort and the House very much appreciates that. I support the motion.

Martin Vickers: I agree with many of the points made—particularly those made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton)—and fully support the report’s aims in respect of transparency and financial accountability. However, I have a few concerns, similar to those expressed by my hon. Friend. For example, I am the trade envoy to the western Balkans, which is six countries. I happen also to be an officer or a member of those six country APPGs, which I think is advantageous to my role as the trade envoy. It may be that showing an interest in those countries before I was appointed to be an envoy played a part in my appointment. I do think it is important that I take an interest in those all-party groups because they give me wider knowledge and an interest in aspects of those countries other than their trade and economy.
I am also an officer of a number of other APPGs, usually because of a personal interest or because they are relevant to my constituency. I am a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Iceland because my constituency is heavily reliant on its trading relationship with Iceland; thousands of my constituents who work in seafood processing are totally reliant on supplies of fish from Iceland. There seems to be a particular logic to that. I am a member of those APPGs because of the trade envoy role, interest in the countries or relevance to my constituency, but why should that stop me from being the treasurer of the all-party parliamentary group on heritage rail? I happen to have a passion for steam railways, some of which are in Wales, I say to the Chair of the Standards Committee. The restriction on membership to six APPGs is perhaps over-egging the pudding to some extent. There is an issue with transparency in some APPGs, but we are perhaps looking for problems that do not exist.
On the issue of 20 Members being a member of an all-party group, on the face of it, that would seem perfectly possible. However, some all-party groups deal with illness and disease—virtually every illness or disease known to man probably has an all-party group. There are the headline ones such as strokes, cancers and so on, but some are rather obscure illnesses that may have affected Members, or their families, who have a particular passion to deal with that and to work with the charities and support groups. To find 20 members could be challenging and make it a little more difficult to do that important work.
The report says:
“There appears to be the real possibility of APPGs having been set up at the suggestion of, and as a result of lobbying by, a commercial interest.”
I set up the all-party parliamentary group on freeports a number of years ago because it was a policy concept I wanted to push that would be beneficial to my constituency and others. We have seen the Government adopt the freeport policies around the country. I set that up because I thought it was advantageous to my constituency, not because I was being lobbied by any commercial interest. However, I was aware that commercial interests were interested in the establishment of freeports—port operators being the obvious candidate. I agree wholeheartedly with the vast majority of what is proposed, but, in respect of the points I have made, it goes too far. I certainly support the suggestion by the Father of the House that we delay a final decision on this.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Chair of the Standards Committee.

Chris Bryant: First, may I put on record my gratitude to the members of the Standards Committee—both the MP members and the seven lay members—to all the Clerks and, in particular in regard to this paper, to James Davies, the registrar, and Philippa Wainwright, the other part of the team running the APPG register.
We have 762 APPGs at the moment. It is virtually impossible to have any kind of proper regulation or oversight of them, or examination of whether they are doing their job properly when we only have two members of staff, one of whom also does the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. So I pay enormous tribute to them for their work. They try to be as helpful as they possibly can be and to ensure that Members do not inadvertently break the rules, because the rules are complicated and there are too many of them.
We have rules for what we are allowed to do in the Chamber, the code of conduct, the behaviour code and the rules on APPGs. Then there are the stationery rules, the rules of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and the ministerial code. All those bodies are different. Frankly, it is very difficult for most Members of Parliament to keep up. I am desperately keen, as is the Standards Committee, to try to have rules that are coherent, consistent and, to use a valleys word, “tidy”.
I used that phrase when we were introducing Ofcom, many years ago, and Hansard rendered “valleys” as “valets”. We do not have many valets in the valleys, so Iusb hope people understand what I mean. We are just trying to bring a bit of tidiness to the sets of rules that we have. Some of you may have valets who do that for you—I do not know why I am looking at you, Madam Deputy Speaker—or indeed batmen, if I am looking at the Minister who opened the debate.

Peter Bottomley: rose—

Chris Bryant: And here comes my valet.

Peter Bottomley: It does depend on how many Ls there are, and whether there is a T.

Chris Bryant: It does—and I have new hearing aids, so I am now quite precise about what I can hear and what I cannot hear in the Chamber.
The serious point here is that we have been lobbied incessantly, ever since I became Chair of the Committee, for new rules on APPGs, by successive Leaders of the House, shadow Leaders of the House, the Speaker, the Speaker in the Lords, Members of the House of Lords—because these are bicameral bodies—a large number of Members of the House of Commons, and external bodies which have been campaigning for changes in the rules because they think that the existing rules are far too flimsy and leave us exposed to a potential new scandal.
I did not like the way in which Sky presented the so-called Westminster Accounts. I thought that some of that was very unfair to individual Members, not least because it lumped any financial benefit that an APPG had received together with the financial interest of the individual Member. It looked as if some individual Members had received hundreds of thousands of pounds of financial support which had gone into their own pockets, whereas all the APPG was doing was trying to bring to the attention of Parliament and the voting public an issue relating to, for instance, a medical condition.
I am therefore keen to get a new set of APPG rules through. I have listened to everything that has been said in the Chamber, and I hope that I will have answers for pretty much everything. I am now looking at the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), because I am rarely able to satisfy him—the Member for Del Monte in his suit over there.

Tim Loughton: He say no. [Laughter.]

Chris Bryant: One thing the hon. Gentleman said which I think is really important was that there are too many APPGs. That is true: 762 is just daft. One Member—I do not know who it is; I have not asked—is an officer of 88 groups. I admire their dedication, but I do not think that they can possibly exercise due diligence on 88 APPGs, especially those with financial interests. That is why we wanted to address the question of how many groups someone could be an officer of, and how many officers there should be for each one.

Tim Loughton: I hear what the hon. Member says, and I do not demur. I said at the outset that I thought there were too many APPGs. For example, dozens of them have some connection with children, which is why I recently brought as many of them as possible together to try to establish a common children’s manifesto. I am contacted virtually every week by someone asking whether I would be interested in setting up a new all-party group, to which my answer is invariably “No, we have too many already.” We need to merge more of these groups into one overarching interest. If there were more scrutiny at the outset, with someone asking, “Can we really justify setting up this APPG? Can it not be part of another one?”, that would be one way of cutting down the number at the beginning of each Parliament when they are set up.

Chris Bryant: That was an idea that we toyed with. It was put to us that we should have a gatekeeper who would decide whether there could be, for instance, an all-party group for each of the Caribbean countries  and one for the Caribbean as a whole, and one for each of the overseas territories as well as one for the overseas territories. The danger with that is the question of how to set the criteria for that person to be able to decide. It would mean putting a great deal of power in the hands of one individual, and that is why in the end we rejected the idea. We have reached a different set of conclusions, which we hope will lead to the same eventual outcome: that someone who currently chairs, or is an officer, of three APPGs in a fairly similar field will say, “Do you know what? I am going to try to get them all to combine, and I want to be the chair of the one.”
The guiding principle for us has been, first and foremost, that APPGs are, broadly speaking, a good thing, but there is a danger that they can be a very, very bad thing. It is certainly a bad thing if a commercial interest is effectively suborning Parliament, gaining a kind of accreditation by virtue of the APPG name. I would argue that this gets particularly acute when the secretariat is provided by an external body that is not even a charity but a PR company or a lobbying company. It seems to me that there is a commercial interest in their making APPGs just to keep themselves in business, and that is an inappropriate way for us to proceed. It leaves us open to real reputational risk for the whole House.
I will go through some of the points that have been made, starting with those made by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers). He said that he was a trade envoy and an officer for six groups. I know that some trade envoys have decided no longer to be officers of the relevant groups because they are the trade envoy who has a relationship with the Government in relation to those countries. I gently suggest to him that that is a better, or perhaps more appropriate, way of proceeding. I understand fully why he may have ended up being a trade envoy, which is a good thing to be, although I worry about quite how the Government make people trade envoys and retain their commitment to the Government by virtue of doing so. I understand that he might have got there because of expressing his interest through those various groups. I would also say to Members that being a member of an all-party group is a perfectly satisfactory way of signifying to the country and to their constituents that they are supportive of it. They do not have to be an officer in every instance.

Christopher Chope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: Has the hon. Gentleman been in for the whole of the debate? [Hon. Members: “No.”] In which case, I will not. I am sorry.

Christopher Chope: rose—

Rosie Winterton: The hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) is not giving way.

Chris Bryant: I am not giving way. It is a courtesy to the House that if you are going to start intervening in a debate, you should have been here for the ministerial openers.

Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think it is within the orders of the House not to accept an intervention, but to make a  derogatory comment while not accepting an intervention does not allow the hon. Member who has been referred to to answer back.

Rosie Winterton: Sorry, could you do that again?

Peter Bottomley: I was suggesting that it is all right for the hon. Member not to take an intervention, but that to go on to make remarks that might be regarded as adverse to the person trying to intervene when he does not have the opportunity to respond seems unfair.

Rosie Winterton: I am not sure that that is a point of order—it is perhaps an opinion—but I think it is courteous for those who are intervening in a debate to have been here for a long time. My feeling about this is that a lot of different views have been expressed and it is important to have heard the whole debate. I do not think it is unreasonable for the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) to say that the reason he is not allowing an intervention is that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) has not been here for the whole of the debate. He is perfectly within his rights to give a reason why he will not take an intervention.

Chris Bryant: Having said that, I now feel that I have been discourteous and I am going to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The point I was going to make is that there seems to be an issue about the definition of membership of an APPG. My understanding is that anybody who is not a member of the Government is a member of an APPG. The hon. Gentleman himself was once involved in a contested election to become chair of the APPG on Russia, and some 200 Members across both Houses we dragooned into voting in that election. They were not registered members of that APPG, but they happened to qualify because they were ordinary Members of Parliament.

Chris Bryant: The rules specify that anybody who is not a member of the Government can be a member and an officer of an all-party group. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I remember the occasion when he, among many others, came to a meeting on the top floor and we had about 350 people voting at an APPG extraordinary general meeting just to get rid of me—over Russia, ironically enough.
The important point the Committee is trying to underline is that an all-party parliamentary group should only be an all-party parliamentary group if it has enough support among the 1,450 Members of this House and the other House to be able to have a proper AGM attended by five Members, for heaven’s sake, and with 20 Members expressing support. That is important because, otherwise, it is very easy for an APPG to be run by an individual Member on behalf of a commercial interest or in pursuit of a personal agenda, bringing along their friends just once a year. That is the evil we are trying to address.

Christopher Chope: Unfortunately, the proposed rules we are being asked to adopt this afternoon say:
“A Member of the House of Commons may be an officer of a maximum of six Groups.
An APPG must have at least 20 members”.
I think the hon. Gentleman is talking about 20 registered members, because all Members of both Houses, other than members of the Government, are automatically members of APPGs if they so wish.

Chris Bryant: No, they are not automatically a member of all APPGs, otherwise every APPG would have 1,450 members. The hon. Gentleman needs to read the rules and the guide to the rules, both of which are available from the Vote Office, as they make all of this perfectly clear.
The point the Committee is trying to make is that every APPG should have a properly constituted annual general meeting, should have a limited number of officers—who have full responsibility for the running of the APPG, and for making sure it operates under the rules of the House and does not expose the House to further reputational damage—and should have enough registered members on the list it submits each year to be able to qualify as a proper all-party parliamentary group.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) refers to the guide to the rules on all-party parliamentary groups. I went out to try to get a copy of this document from the Vote Office and was able to get one copy, but there were no other copies available. The Vote Office is currently trying to print more copies. Considering how few Members there are in the Chamber, it seems most unsatisfactory that we have such a small number of copies of the guide to the rules, which extends to a very large number of pages. Why can we not all see this before we reach a conclusion?

Rosie Winterton: What is the point of order?

Christopher Chope: This debate should not conclude until all Members present have had an opportunity to read the guide to the rules on all-party parliamentary groups, a copy of which is not yet available to every Member.

Rosie Winterton: I have received no other complaints from hon. and right hon. Members that they do not have a copy. As the hon. Gentleman says, he has not been here for the whole debate, so he has not heard a lot of the other arguments. It is a bit discourteous to keep disrupting the debate in this way. We should allow the Chair of the Standards Committee to finish his speech without interruption through points of order, which is a poor approach when we are having a debate. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) is on the Panel of Chairs, so I hope he would understand.

Chris Bryant: I will come on to the Panel of Chairs a little later.
I rather enjoyed that point of order, because I think the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) is complaining that he has a copy of the relevant document that he wanted.
APPGs are great, but we have too many. There is a great deal of duplication, and I suspect we are all guilty. Many of us end up creating another new APPG on another new medical condition that is somewhat similar to other APPGs, and so on. Colleagues are often a bit naughty in trying to make every APPG publication look remarkably like a Select Committee report, knowing perfectly well that, when it is referred to on the “Today” programme or on ITV, the APPG will be referred to almost identically as a “Committee of MPs,” which is unfortunate because we should rigorously protect the authority of Select Committees and official communications of the whole House.
As I said earlier, I sometimes feel that APPGs are the soft underbelly of the way we do parliamentary lobbying. One Member, who I am not naming—I do not even know who it is—is an officer of 88 all-party parliamentary groups, and I do not think they could possibly do due diligence on all 88 groups.

Alistair Carmichael: I was not here at the start of the debate. I tuned in and have been following it on the television. I heard the speech from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and I found that there was more to this than I had previously realised. I make all the due apologies, but I think it is better to make a late intervention than no intervention.
The point the Chairman of the Committee makes about the quasi-Select Committee reports has some substance, but he has to remember that not everybody or every party in this House has an automatic right to be a member of a Select Committee. That privilege is given to the three largest parties only. The Liberal Democrats, the Democratic Unionists, the Green party and others do not have that opportunity to be part of the Select Committee structure. For that reason, our voice being heard through APPGs is very important.

Chris Bryant: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point, which I fully take on board. However, ever since APPGs were first created, the House has repeatedly wanted to ensure a clear distinction between reports produced by a group of MPs and ones produced officially by the House. That is an important distinction.
Not every grouping of MPs needs to become an APPG. I have chaired an APPG on acquired brain injury, and it was often difficult to get it going, because all the Conservatives on it kept on being made Ministers—they then got sacked and then they were made Ministers again. One of them, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), may be about to become Defence Secretary—I have co-operated with him on this subject for a very long time—and another is the Northern Ireland Secretary. Keeping APPGs going is sometimes problematic, because the people who are most interested sometimes get other jobs that mean that they cannot take part. But there is no reason why someone cannot continue the work without being in an APPG.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham was irritated when he kept getting text messages from APPGs saying, “Can you come to Room R for two minutes at 2 o’clock because otherwise we will not be quorate for our AGM.” That is an inappropriate way of doing our business. If we  cannot get five genuinely interested people along to an AGM, it probably should not be an APPG, especially if it has some external financial interest. The danger is that nobody is exercising proper due diligence over the finances.
For some of us, APPGs have become a bit of a tyranny. The hon. Gentleman says that he is chair of nine, and he is also an assiduous member of a Select Committee and he is regularly in the Chamber. It would benefit us all if there were fewer all-party groups and, as I say, there is reputational risk here. The Committee expressly asked me to say that it expects that the rules we are introducing will lead to fewer all-party groups. That is the express intention of what we are doing.
Let me be clear about what we are doing. As has been mentioned, we propose that APPGs will be able to have only four officers. The intention is to make sure that every one of those officers takes a proper interest in the running of the APPG. Rather than having 10 vice-chairs, four treasurers and all the rest of it, we propose that there be four officers, who are charged with making sure that the group is run properly. We also propose that all APPGs must have an up-to-date list of 20 supporters—registered members. Thirdly, we propose that a Member can be an officer of only six all-party groups, as has been mentioned. Again, part of the reason is that we want these people to be able to exercise due diligence over the running of the group. I am not questioning the hon. Gentleman here; I belong to nearly all the all-party groups that he chairs and he has admirably driven forward issues, including on the British Museum—that was an all-party group that I founded. I admire all that work, but we do want to make sure that we do not imperil the reputation of the House.

Tim Loughton: It was David Heathcoat-Amory who set up the British Museum group, but that is neither here nor there. On most of the all-party groups where I am chair, I am actually co-chair, so it is not a question of the chair having to do all the work. Does he take my point that limiting the number of officers to four means that there will not be such a wide spread of parties to make it a genuine all-party parliamentary group? Those four people will now be key and will have greater control, accountability and scrutiny over the activities of that group.

Chris Bryant: No, I do not buy that, I am afraid, because what we are trying to say is there are officers and there are registered members. All the registered members should express an interest in the running of the group, and that will demonstrate the cross-party nature of the body.
We recognise that there are many APPGs where there is no financial interest at all. There is no money or external secretariat; it is simply done out of the goodness of the office of the individual Member. We have left most of the rules for APPGs with no financial interest unchanged in all other regards, and the quorum will remain five people.
However, we are introducing a quorum of eight for APPGs where there is a financial interest, and we are saying that the chair for an AGM or extraordinary general meeting of those APPGs will be provided by Mr Speaker, as was requested by Mr Speaker and the Lord Speaker. They want a clear, independent body to  be able to administrate whether there has been a proper annual general meeting and that all the rules have been abided by.
I know that Mr Speaker has had some conversations with the Panel of Chairs. It may be necessary to have a couple more members of the Panel of Chairs. We are fully cognisant of the fact that it will take time for all groups to have their AGMs and extraordinary general meetings to be able to comply with the rules, which is why we are making transitional arrangements, although we want the main body of the rules to apply from 16 October, as the motion says.
It might help if I read out the transitional arrangements, because they are important for everybody. They are at the beginning of the document referred to by the hon. Member for Christchurch, and they were in the resolution of the Committee yesterday.
“(1) The rules prohibiting foreign governments from providing or funding (whether directly or indirectly) a secretariat come into force with immediate effect on 16 October 2023.
(2) APPGs need to comply with any other new rules from their first AGM following the new rules coming into force, or 31 March 2024, whichever is the earlier; except that the additional rules applying to APPGs that meet the £1,500 funding threshold will apply only from 31 March 2024.
(3) APPGs will be able to hold EGMs virtually or by correspondence during a transition period (to meet the requirement for 4 officers and no more; and to ensure that those officers are officers of no more than 5 other APPGs) ending on 31 March 2024.
(4) An audit of compliance will be carried out in April 2024. Any APPG that has not complied with the Rules by 31 March 2024”—
which happens to be Easter Sunday—
“will be deregistered.”
I hope it is helpful that I have read that out, because we want to make it as clear as we possibly can.

Peter Bottomley: When was what the hon. Gentleman has just read out agreed? How is it available to us now?

Chris Bryant: It was agreed yesterday at the Standards Committee. We only knew today that this debate was going to be happening today; we thought it was going to be later in the year. It is available on the front page of the document referred to earlier, “The Guide to the Rules on All-Party Parliamentary Groups”, which is available from the Vote Office. It was agreed yesterday, under the authority granted to the Standards Committee.

Peter Bottomley: I have “The Guide to the Rules”—I am one of the ones who managed to get a copy. I don’t see it—

Chris Bryant: It is on page 2.

Peter Bottomley: Transitional arrangements? I have read through every other page, starting with page 3—I did not read page 2. I do not believe any other Member of this Chamber, except for the other members of the Standards Committee, has read that. To take a decision on the arrangements this evening, given the impact it will have on every all-party group, is not necessary, wise or advisable.

Chris Bryant: I think that was a speech. Perhaps the hon. Member will be able to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am conscious that I have spoken for quite a long time and I had not intended to do so.

Tim Loughton: rose—

Chris Bryant: I am very happy to give way to the hon. Member.

Tim Loughton: Those sort of details are helpful. I understand how the transition arrangements impact the all-party groups themselves. However, to take my situation, I will have to give up the next AGMs coming up to get down to a quota of six, and they may not be the AGMs that I want to give up, but I will have to do so. That means that I have a problem, does it not?

Chris Bryant: The thing is that I have a problem, too. We have been working on this and consulting the House repeatedly for three years now. We have been repeatedly told by Members that we have to come up with a new set of rules. The new rules that we have produced—all the individual elements that have been referred to so far—were available months ago. The Government responded to them, and we published the Government’s response to them several weeks ago, and we have the debate today. I am not convinced that, if we were to delay the decision today, we would come up with better rules, or a new version of the debate, in September.

Deidre Brock: rose—

Chris Bryant: I will give way to the hon. Lady, and then I will not give way anymore, because I am keen to leave the stage.

Deidre Brock: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I wish to start by correcting the record. Although I am not a stand-alone chair of an all-party group, I am a co-chair. I was reminded by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and the Father of the House of the BBC all-party parliamentary group. On the requirement for the four officers to be held jointly and severally liable for compliance with the additional rules for the groups, who will they turn to for advice and guidance should they require it?

Chris Bryant: At present, they would turn to either Philippa Wainwright, who is the registrar of the APPGs, or to James Davis. If they really wanted to, they could also turn to either Eve Samson, who is the Clerk of the Journals, or Daniel Greenberg, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. All of these arrangements have been agreed between the Clerks and the two registrars. Everyone stands ready to provide people with advice. I know Mr Speaker stands ready to provide chairs for AGMs or extraordinary general meetings when we get back in September. One thing that we have exceptionally allowed is that people will be able to do extraordinary general meetings virtually—online—which will make it much easier for people to comply.
I will try to stop now. I know that there is some frustration in the House and I fully understand that. As I have said repeatedly to the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and Mr Speaker, I am not sure that there is an easy consensus to be found on proceeding.

Alistair Carmichael: rose—

Chris Bryant: I am not giving way again. I am really sorry, but I have been trying to leave the stage for some time.
This is the next scandal coming down the line. I know that the vast majority of Members want to address the matter. We cannot possibly do so if we remain with 762 all-party parliamentary groups. That is more than there are Members of this House. It is almost as many Members as there are in the other place. If a group cannot get five people to an AGM, it probably is not really an APPG and should not have the imprimatur that the APPG title guarantees it. I urge the House to support these measures today. Actually, the authority is vested in the Committee; it does not need to be agreed to by the House, but we thought that it was best for the House to be able to take a view as well.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Father of the House.

Peter Bottomley: Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I say to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) that he should use the word “vale” when he says goodbye? For those who were not here earlier, we were having a discussion about how “valet” was spelt and sounded.
I have obviously been remiss in not paying enough attention since the publication of the first report on all-party groups. That concluded that the risk of
“influence by hostile foreign actors through APPGs is real.”
It said that there had been
“a dramatic increase in the number of APPGs”,
commercial interests and the like.
That did not prepare me for the motion, and the conclusions that the Committee came to. The motion contains the words
“subject to any transitional arrangements agreed by the Committee on Standards.”
I had not realised that the Committee would make transitional arrangements without consulting us. I do not believe that I saw draft proposals that alerted me to that. That is my fault. I am not blaming the Committee, but I think that the Chair of the Committee is not right that delaying a vote on this would not allow for improvement; it would.

Alistair Carmichael: Had I been able to intervene on the Chair of the Committee, I would have said that I agree wholeheartedly with his analysis, and his starting point about the need for reform. I fear that the proposals will result in a variety of unintended consequences coming down the track, but I am prepared to go with them for today if I hear some sort of undertaking, from the Committee or from anywhere else in the House, that there will be a review of them, so that if my fears about unintended consequences prove to be correct we can revisit them, and not just say, “We’ve done that; we’re not going back to it.”

Peter Bottomley: We have heard that the Committee could, so to speak, impose the proposals even if the House rejects them. I think that we probably should vote on them, just to ensure that Members who are paying attention have the chance to express their view. I will vote against them on the basis that they should be reviewed.
I am happy to co-operate with the commissioner, the hon. Member for Rhondda, the Committee, the Clerks, the Lord Speaker and the Commons Speaker to help to  make the improvements that people desire and that are necessary. Some implications of the proposals are not improvements; they are retrogressive.

Chris Bryant: I am trying to be helpful to the House. The rules on APPGs are the prerogative of the Committee. That was already a decision of the House, but we did not want to proceed without the House taking a view. I hear quite a lot of discomfort about several elements of the proposals. I think that it will look terrible if we decide to pull them this afternoon—it will look as if the House does not want to take action, and that will be seen badly. What might be right is that we reassess the issue of transitional arrangements if people want to make representations to us, which the Committee could hear at its first meeting in September. One option is obviously that none of the proposals applies until the next Parliament. The Committee was hesitant about that—I am sorry that this is a long intervention, but I am trying to be helpful—only because it might look as if this Parliament was not prepared to put its house in order; it just wanted a future set of people to do it.

Peter Bottomley: That is potentially helpful. I am grateful, and the House will be as well. If the transitional arrangements concentrated on foreign Governments, or significant commercial beneficiaries, effectively supporting groups, that would be understood. It is the other parts that I do not understand. I say that as someone who was asked to chair the Austria all-party parliamentary group when Angus Robertson became leader of the SNP group at Westminster and felt that he could not do it. I stood in and did it, and I remain the chair of that group. In co-operation with the Austrian embassy, which provides no money and no resources, we welcome Austrians here. I guess that alternative arrangements for some functions of that kind could be made quite easily within the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
I am chair of the BBC all-party parliamentary group because one of our colleagues became the interim Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. To keep the all-party group going, given the importance of being able to hear from the BBC and liaise with it on controversial and non-controversial issues, I thought that it was important to stand in.
I am, I think, the chair or co-chair of 12 groups. I am the person the hon. Member for Rhondda referred to as being an officer of more than 80 groups. I could quite cheerfully take him and the House through each of the groups and why I am a member of them. [Hon. Members: “No!”] I will not go through them all, but I will give some illustrative examples.
I am the parliamentary warden of St Margaret’s Church on Parliament Square. I saw the lights on one evening and went into a service, which was the 12-step addiction service. All kinds of people with addictions, whether alcohol, gambling, sex, stealing or whatever else, were giving their witness. That gave me an interest in 12-step recovery programmes and, when a Member of the House of Lords asked whether I would help to set up an all-party group, I agreed. That is one of the groups of which I am a co-chair and registered contact, and I think it is worthwhile. The idea that we would necessarily get four members together at the same time or have 20 people registering as members is unlikely, but  the work done by that group is important to all kinds of people inside the House, both Members and staff, and outside it.
I was once asked by Tristan Garel-Jones, a humanist, whether I, a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee who had been a trustee of Christian Aid and chairman of the Church of England Children’s Society, would be prepared to get a humanist group going. I said I would; I said that I was not a humanist, but it seemed to me that it was a line of thought that deserved some kind of parliamentary opportunity. The group has since grown and I am no longer a member of it.
I could go through the various other groups, but there are two that I am keenest on. The first is the group on leasehold and commonhold reform, where for more than 10 years, working first with Jim Fitzpatrick and now with the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), and with the help of the campaigning charity Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, we have fought to look after the interests of 6 million residential leaseholders. Even in the last couple of days we have had success with the Financial Conduct Authority on trying to ensure that those people are not ripped off on insurance, commissions and the like. That group can get large numbers of Members interested, but not get them all together at the same time.
The same applies to the group on park homes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) has been in charge of for a long time with Sonia McColl, one of the campaigners. To show the kind of interests that we were up against, when her mobile home was being moved from one place to another, it was stolen.
I have some incredible things going on. If I were brought down to six chairmanships, I would not be able to do half the good that I do, and I do not always know which group will become important. When one of my hon. Friends became a Minister, he asked if I would take on, with the Astronomer Royal, the group on dark skies. We are co-leaders of the world in astronomy, and it is important to have parliamentary interest, so that Members of the Lords and Commons who are interested can come to meetings and we can liaise with outside groups.
I think very few of the groups I am involved in—although there are some—would not do worse if I were not interested. I say this to the Government, to those on the Front Benches and to the SNP: it is not necessary for this motion to pass. We have been told it does not matter to Parliament, because the Committee itself can set the rules, but it is possible to get through to the beginning of the next Parliament with suitable transition arrangements that are variations of what is on page 2 of the guide to rules.

Tim Loughton: I think the compromises my hon. Friend is putting forward will be helpful here. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), the Chairman of the Committee, is concerned that if we pulled this motion now and deferred it to the next Parliament, it would look like a cop-out. This matter needs to be resolved by this Parliament, but it does not need to be resolved this month. I would certainly ask the Standards Committee to come back with some small revisions to parts of the rules, particularly the transitional rules that have been queried. This is not about the bigger issues of  foreign intervention or transparency, because I think we all agree on those. If the Committee came back with those revisions as a matter of urgency in September, the rules could still come in on his timeline—although, frankly, I think that if we resolved the matter now but they did not come in until the next Parliament, most of the problems would go away.

Peter Bottomley: I agree, and I hope others have heard what my hon. Friend said.
I refer again to pages 55 to 74 of the guide to the rules. It may or may not surprise colleagues that that is appendix 5, on data protection and APPGs—page after page after page of MPs who run groups telling MPs who may be members of the group, or who may be on a mailing list, how we handle their data. That is one of those things where we move ten places across, from one thing to another, without anybody on the Standards Committee understanding at all what was being put forward.
I do not know whether the Chair of the Standards Committee has experience of trying to administer all-party groups. Getting the detail right is important. We try to get it right, and we make some mistakes, but to add in an extra 20 pages for each group that we may be involved in, even if we are limited to six groups, gives us more than 100 pages to fill in. It is bureaucracy. If the only people who can be members of those groups are Members of Parliament, what on earth are we trying to do? That should not be there, and I hope that it is taken out.

Christopher Chope: Another unintended consequence is that, if a group is allowed only four officers, and one of those officers is appointed to the Government, or falls under a bus, the group will be unable to operate until it has had a formal meeting to elect a replacement. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is so rigid as to be unworkable?

Rosie Winterton: Order. This debate has to finish in nine minutes, and one more Member wishes to speak before the Minister. The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) has been speaking for 12 minutes, and I would like to give five minutes to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett).

Peter Bottomley: First, I believe that the Chairman of the Committee is wrong to say that people are not members of groups. We are all members of groups. Requiring 20 names to be put down is, again, bureaucratic.
Secondly, I say to the Chairman: do what I have suggested, which makes sense. Do not push the motion to a vote now—I will vote against it if he does. Whatever the result of that vote, he should consult again. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and I, and anybody else who wants to, will come in to have a roundtable and solve the problems. I believe in controlling foreign Government and big commercial interests; I do not believe in wrecking the purposes of all-party groups. Most of those I am involved in have no foreign Government or big commercial interests.

Jon Trickett: This has been a fascinating debate—I almost used the word “delay”, but I would not dare to when speaking about the Father of the House. In the few minutes I have, let me try to make the case against a vote. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Chair of the Committee has listened—we all have—and maybe some refinement can be achieved.
My hon. Friend might have made a stronger case if he had recalled to the House the distinction that his report makes between two types of all-party group. Many of them are benign, as we have heard. When I came to Parliament in 1996 through a by-election, they seemed relatively benign to me, but then I worked twice in Government—in No. 10 and the Cabinet Office—and then for 10 years on the Opposition Front Bench. Over the years, I reflected on the asymmetry of power between the people who have money and, as a result, access to power, including access to this place, and the millions of people around the country who also have interests but are not always heard. I therefore resigned from every APPG—I may be the only person here who is not in a single one. Maybe Members will say that I am not a very effective MP, but it seems to me that, if I want to speak to MPs, commercial interests, or private and civil society groups, I am capable of doing so without being in an APPG.
On the other hand, I would be happy to be party to many of the groups that have been mentioned today, which seem benign. However—and this is the point that I think sticks in the craw—commercial interests have dominated so much of our political life that that asymmetry of power and access to wealth and to this place is so profound that it is eating away at the body politic itself. We have funding coming from the arms industry, the tobacco industry, polluters, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals,  private healthcare and so on. They are all putting money into APPGs.
Members might ask, “Well, what’s wrong with that?” I am not against the arms industry—I am not a pacifist—but it is one of the largest beneficiaries of state procurement with taxpayers’ money. The private sector in health has an interest in trying to undermine the way in which the health service works. Tobacco is clearly regularly the subject of regulation. They all have access to the House and to Members of Parliament simply because they have the capacity to buy influence through the APPG system. I am not suggesting that anything about that is corrupt, but people outside, such as Peter, who I met yesterday in my constituency, where the local bank has closed—he is 88 years old and nearly blind—want to know that we operate on their behalf and not purely in the interests of large commercial operators.
Then there is the problem of foreign influence. The Committee made it clear in the report that foreign countries have not only attempted to influence our Parliament through APPGs, but succeeded in doing so. Some hostile countries, as we would define them, have sought to influence, but it is not just them. From the news today, we know that Britain was in competition with Spain over the location of a battery factory—I am glad we have got it for the UK. There is a Spain APPG, and I do not suggest in any way that it is malign, but foreign countries—allies or not—have an interest in understanding how our Parliament works.
I am glad that the Committee has recommended changes. If we can get through today without a vote against, the Committee can go away and reflect on the debate and tackle the malign aspects of APPGs. Parliament would then be in a much better place.

Johnny Mercer: I will be very brief. It has been a fascinating debate and there are strongly held views on all sides. The Committee has been tasked with looking at how we tackle this problem, and I think everyone agrees there is an issue with APPGs. I urge colleagues not to divide today—

Chris Bryant: Again, I will try to be helpful. If we vote down the motion today, it will mean that we cannot even take action on telling APPGs that they cannot take money from foreign Governments and I think that that would be a terrible mistake. If we carry the motion today, I undertake, having listened to all the contributions, that, at the next meeting of the Committee in September, we will make such adjustments as we think suitable—we are entitled to do so under the rules—to meet some of the issues that Members have raised. I would be grateful if Members could write to me with specific suggestions that they think might help, but we might also revisit the idea of when the transitional period will end.

Johnny Mercer: I strongly urge Members to take that course of action. Voting down the motion would be extremely self-defeating.

Peter Bottomley: I hope that what the Chair of the Committee has just said can be interpreted as including not only the transitional arrangements, but some of the minor arrangements that are no threat to the major purposes behind this.

Johnny Mercer: I am sure the Chair of the Committee has heard that remark—

Chris Bryant: I have taken my hearing aid out, but I did hear what the Father of the House said.

Johnny Mercer: Fantastic. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House approves the Eighth Report of the Committee on Standards, Session 2022–23, HC 228, on All-Party Parliamentary Groups: final proposals and, with effect from 16 October, the Rules for All-Party Parliamentary Groups contained in the Annex of that Report, subject to any transitional arrangements agreed by the Committee on Standards.

Petition - Barclays Kidsgrove

Jonathan Gullis: Today, I am presenting my petition, which has gathered 522 signatures and counting. Residents and businesses of the great town of Kidsgrove and surrounding areas of Talke, Newchapel, Butt Lane, Goldenhill and Tunstall were rightly outraged when Barclays announced the closure of its Kidsgrove branch. Many of my constituents —some of whom are elderly and vulnerable—rely on the face-to-face services provided by Barclays Kidsgrove, and the closure would leave the entire constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke with just one physical bank. The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Barclays in order to keep their branch open in Kidsgrove.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North,
Declares that following the planned closure by Barclays of their bank branch in Kidsgrove, this would leave the constituency with just one physical bank.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government work with Barclays in order to keep their branch open in Kidsgrove.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002848]

Retail Crime

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Scott Mann.)

Ian Paisley Jnr: I appreciate the opportunity to open this Adjournment debate so early in the day. At the outset, I want to register the fact that I am a member and officer of the all-party parliamentary group on retail crime. Given the debate that we have just had, it is very important that I do so. I have no pecuniary interest in that matter: it is about ensuring that our high street is protected, and that parliamentarians are aware of issues that are important to high street independent retailers and consumers. I believe that the APPG plays a vital role in doing that and in giving a voice to voiceless people on those important issues.
I thank the British Independent Retailers Association, which is one of the consumer voices for thousands of retail shops across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. It tries to make representations for those groups and bring together their views. I also thank the Association of Convenience Stores, which represents thousands of businesses across the country—small businesses, shopkeepers and traders—and aims to make sure that their issues are properly represented. I will make a prediction, Madam Deputy Speaker: my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will intervene on me at some point this evening. I think it is important that that happens, and I look forward to it, but I am glad that other colleagues have indicated their interest in this matter, because it is something that affects the entire United Kingdom and every single one of its component parts: Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland.
This is a matter of concern because, quite frankly, the high street is under threat from a host of things. The modern way in which we shop has driven people from actual shopping to online shopping, which has an impact on retail trade. That, in turn, has an impact on the issue that I hope to bring to the attention of the House: retail crime. Survey after survey shows that the public feel it is important that we have a thriving local high street, and that they prefer to shop at smaller independent businesses that are unique—that have a connection to the local community and offer uniqueness, opportunities and, importantly, choice to the consumer.
However, independent retail shops such as those represented by the British Independent Retailers Association have indicated that they are under threat from a number of challenges. Those businesses are working on tighter and tighter margins, not only because of the lack of a level playing field with online retailers, but because of retail crime. Retail crime is not a victimless crime: it costs the UK economy approximately £1.9 billion a year, and policing it and putting protections in place costs businesses about £600 million a year.

Margaret Ferrier: I congratulate the hon. Member on securing tonight’s Adjournment debate. Something I have noted from conversations with retail workers in my constituency is a reduction in the provision of security guards by many companies, despite increasing crime rates. While I understand the budgetary considerations, does he agree that companies need to take their duty of care to both workers and customers more seriously?

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the hon. Member for raising that point. The protection of workers is very important to us all—I suppose we could all recount stories where members of staff in high street shops have been verbally or physically abused. That has to be taken seriously. Of course, with crime increasing, the availability of cash has also depleted. ATMs have moved inside shops and away from banks because banks on the high street have closed, and consumers are now charged for taking their money out of those cash machines. All those knock-on effects have an impact on retail trade and crime up and down the country. Those matters will bear heavily on shops.
I want to put that statistic on record again: retail crime costs the UK economy £1.9 billion a year, and it costs businesses about £600 million a year—over half a billion pounds—to put protections in place. Retailers across the UK report that one of the biggest threats to their businesses is customer theft, which comes as no surprise. Customer theft affects the productivity and competitiveness of smaller shops, not least because if those shops make a claim against their insurance, their premiums increase. Because they are working on margins of 4% to 5%, any theft impacts the profitability of a business. So a shopkeeper or retailer is actually discouraged from claiming off their insurance, which is there to protect them from this, because it will have such an impact on their profit margin that it could ultimately put them out of business, and that matter is incredibly important.
Of course, we all know that the cost of living crisis means that more people are desperate, and despair can cause desperate measures. However, that cannot mean people have free rein. On that point, I for one will not draw a distinction in saying that, because there is a cost of living crisis, that will make people want to steal. That is not the nature of the average citizen in this kingdom. The average citizens in this kingdom are good people and they want to do good things. But there are increasing pressures that drive other people to crime and I think we have to be very clear about that. The cost of living crisis is affecting everyone and it is affecting shops. More people have less to spend and, if retail crime is left unchecked, businesses will just buckle and fold.
Retailers do take responsibility and arm themselves against this type of crime by investing in loss prevention measures, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) has said. Loss prevention measures include CCTV, special mirrors, panic alarms, shutters, high-value items secured behind counters and overhead gantries. However, many independent businesses do not have the financial capability or the size of store to invest in the same way that large national chain companies are able to do and that have a physical security presence. Even if they do, the £1.9 billion cost is passed on to the consumers. Again, that highlights that this will drive the cost of living crisis even further, so it is a vicious circle. We in this House have an opportunity to challenge it and I hope the Minister, through his actions—I know that the Minister is committed to this—has the ability to help to break that vicious chain.
In addition to the financial loss, there is also the emotional impact. If the shop worker is unable to go back to work after they have been verbally abused, spat at or physically abused, that has a dire impact on the  economy of that family or of those people. The fact is that 47% of retailers have reported that vulnerable customers are not visiting their shops at night due to the fear of crime, which again reduces their ability to participate in the community, because shops are about community. They are about the high street flourishing and about people within the community meeting and greeting, and engaging in business.

Jim Shannon: First, can I congratulate my honourable colleague and good friend? He is right to outline all the things that shops can do in relation to, No. 1, safety for their workers and, No. 2, safety for their customers. I have been the representative for Strangford in this House since 2010, but I was a Member of the Legislative Assembly before that and a councillor. Over those years, I have watched the shops in my constituency and seen shop workers who have been verbally abused, who have been attacked with knives and who have had to call the police after having been beaten up in their shops. Yet, with all the precautions that are taken in a shop, and it is right to take those precautions, it only ever works if the police are accessible, and the problem for us in many cases is that the police are so busy that they are not able to attend incidents in shops at the time when the people need them to be there. CCTV can retain the evidence, but the police need to be there. Has my hon. Friend experienced that in his constituency as well?

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I think he has over 26 or 27 years of elected experience between these two bodies, and with that on Ards Council, over 30. I think it is telling that he has probably, like me, seen an increase in this and an increase in the threats to shops. Of course, that has been impacted by the things I mentioned earlier: the change in shopping habits with online shopping and therefore the inability sometimes to invest in some of these issues.
Everyone who works in a shop has the right to feel safe behind their counter and that their livelihood is not under threat. That is why I am pleased to be a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on retail crime, safe and sustainable high streets and to be leading on this debate and pushing the matter forward. We want to ensure that high streets remain at the heart of our community, but unless shop theft is regarded as a serious crime, it will continue to grow. We need to flag up that this is not shoplifting and this is not petty; it is serious and at times organised and it must be addressed. We are talking here about serious and organised crime: this is a serious crime and we must deal with it.
I went through the history of parliamentary questions asked on this issue. From the response to a written question by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) to the Ministry of Justice in 2018 we learned that a perpetrator of retail crime would, appallingly, have to be convicted 30 times before they were given a custodial sentence, up from 27 in 2017. In 2016, one offender received their first custodial sentence after—wait for it—435 previous offences; in 2017, the figure was 279 previous offences, and in 2018 it was 287 previous offences. For a prolific daily offender it took hundreds and hundreds of offences before they received a custodial sentence. What message does that send out to the kleptomaniac and the person who says, “I just need that item”? It sends the message that they will probably get away with it.
That is not good enough, and this issue is not being treated seriously enough. It is therefore no surprise that according to the British Retail Consortium only 15% of shoplifting crime is reported, and a majority of businesses—over 56%—say that they believe the police operate “poorly” or “very poorly” when dealing with retail crime. I understand that. I deal with the police regularly in my constituency, and this refers to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Talking exclusively about Northern Ireland, when police budgets have been driven down and when the chief constable rightly puts out the message that people will notice the lack of policing because those budgets have been driven down, this sort of crime is only going to go one way—up. I know the situation in England and Wales is slightly different because the police here have been given additional support, which is very welcome. I would love for that support to be cross-applied to Northern Ireland. I have deliberately not made this debate specifically on Northern Ireland because that would let the Government take the easy path of saying that calling the Assembly back would lead to this being sorted out. That is not the resolution, however; this is about budgetary support from the Home Office for policing. We do not have that support and we require it.
So what needs to happen? All of this means that the retail industry feels largely unprotected. Unfortunately, that is the case across the entire country. From Abbott’s in Devon to Mackays of Cambridge and across to Fermanagh in Ulster, many members of the British Independent Retail Association have been campaigning on retail crime and have given evidence directly to the Home Office on this issue. They have found that, even with video evidence, there just is not the interest or imperative for some of the authorities some of the time to get involved. They feel ignored and let down. We must address that, because it is not in the interests of us as lawmakers or of those of us who want this country to flourish. We want to make sure that the law is seen to apply, is seen to apply fairly and, where it has to be, is seen to apply strictly and to punish people engaged in this crime.
Reductions in resources available to police forces are undoubtedly posing challenges, but, more pertinently, there is still a lack of consistency in responses to retail crime across the country. This has not happened by introducing the crazy £200 arbitrary figure that the Government set in the guidelines to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which advises police forces that they do not need to respond if the value stolen was below that figure. A written question from the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), who is a fellow vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on retail crime, safe and sustainable high streets, showed that the percentage of shop thefts dealt with by the justice system stands at 13%, down from 36%. That is simply not acceptable and I hope the Minister agrees.
Prosecuting shoplifting needs to be quicker, easier and cheaper from the point of view of police forces and retailers. With the use of compelling CCTV evidence and technology, processes can and should be modernised to increase the conviction rate. At the moment, data protection often means that shoplifters are protected from identification, even though they are a danger to the public and other retail businesses. That needs to  change. I am not saying that we need to put “wanted” posters up all over the country, but sometimes we feel like that when we know that a particular person in our village or high street is a menace. In the town of Ballymena, the shops have a radio connection so that when certain people are seen in the town it goes around like wildfire: “So-and-so’s in the town today. Try to prevent them coming into your shop and, more importantly, be alert and make sure they don’t do it.”
When an arrest is made, the punishment must reflect the seriousness of the crime. With that in mind, it would be much better if part of the process for reporting this type of crime was a mandatory victim impact statement so the court can hear the dilemma shop owners and shopworkers are placed in and the pain they feel. It would help to ensure that criminals are more likely to get the sentence they deserve if the real impact of their crime is laid before the courts and the judge hears the impact it has had on the community. All retail crime needs to be treated seriously. We need to expunge the words, “This is just shoplifting”. It is not. That phrase has to be removed from our lexicon. That type of terminology implies that it is somehow less of a crime and not as important.
I will leave those thoughts with the Minister. I understand that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) wishes to make a contribution. He spoke to me earlier behind Mr Speaker’s Chair and I am more than happy to agree to that. In conclusion, this is an important issue on which we can have cross-party co-operation. Let us show retailers that that is the case and implement these simple solutions that will help our retailers live and thrive, and help the high street thrive again.

Tim Loughton: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) for letting me make a short—perhaps uncharacteristically short, some might say—contribution rather than interventions. I agree with everything he said. I just want to focus on one particular aspect, which is the use of security guards in shops and a recent incident that happened in my constituency, and also attacks on retail workers. The Home Affairs Committee did a report on that a little while ago and pushed to make it an aggravated crime, in particular when retail workers are attacked because they refuse to sell restricted goods such as alcohol or tobacco to people because of their age and are effectively policing that in place of the state.
I had an incident in my constituency a couple of weeks ago that went viral for all the wrong reasons. I will not go into great detail, because although it is not currently subject to any legal action it may become so. A Co-op store in my constituency has, I am afraid, something of a reputation for shoplifting, particularly by gangs of young people who have been causing problems in an area close to a railway line recently. Somebody, a teenager, was drunk and blatantly shoplifting in front of a security guard who declined to do anything about it. A member of the public stepped in to say, “Hold on, you shouldn’t be doing that.” She was assaulted and then the teenager legged it. Somebody who had witnessed  that then drove around the corner, where there was a police car with a PCSO sitting in it. He pulled up to the police car and happened to have his dashcam on. He recorded a conversation where he said, “You need to get round to the Co-op sharpish, because there is an incident going on”, only for the officer—I am not going to pre-judge, because this incident is being looked at—basically to say, “I cannot get involved.” What was supposed to happen there? Obviously the police need to be called and should intervene, but they had not arrived at that stage, although they did later. A member of the public was being attacked. A security guard who had been employed by the Co-op to look after the goods in that store should surely have intervened.
The Co-op is a good store, a good employer and it does some good things. The Co-op lobbied members of the Home Affairs Committee and we took evidence from it in particular about attacks on retail workers, but it needs to do its bit, too. We were told that retail workers would be fitted with bodycams, so that they could record the evidence to prosecute people. I have to say that in Sussex, largely down to our police commissioner, Katy Bourne, the Co-op has taken the lead on taking shoplifting—or however we want to term it, and I entirely agree with the hon. Member for North Antrim that we should not downplay the importance of the act. It is being taken far more seriously, and the police will now respond to shoplifting incidents more rapidly and with greater seriousness than they perhaps have in the past. It is not enough, but it is better than it was.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The hon. Gentleman is making a valuable point, and I am delighted that these proactive measures are being taken. One of the points that concerns me is that some shops and businesses will not be able to afford to take them. That is the problem. We have got to have something holistic that allows the small retailer the same benefit as those retailers that are better off. What he talks about is an expediential step in the right direction.

Tim Loughton: Absolutely. I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said earlier about how we underplay the significance of this issue, which acts as a green light for other people to come in saying, “Nobody is being prosecuted.” If, as in the case the hon. Gentleman mentioned, it is taking 400 times before somebody is actually incarcerated, it sends out a strong message that nicking from a supermarket or a store is fairly easy and people will probably get away with it. I am afraid that is the message that has been sent out from stores such as the one I have mentioned. They are not doing enough to prevent shoplifting by employing people to intervene—where they do employ security guards—so that a clear message goes out, saying, “We take shoplifting seriously here, so please do not try it.”
My point is that companies such as the Co-op need to employ security guards where there is a problem, but they need to be security guards who can intervene. There is nothing in the law that would stop that security guard intervening, restraining the person responsible for the incident I just mentioned, and detaining them until a police officer arrives and can take appropriate action. They chose not to, and that is policy in certain stores. That is not protecting the goods in the store or members of the public who were in danger, and, in this case, were assaulted by this person, allegedly. It is also not protecting the staff.
My ask out of all of this is that the police do more. We need to do more to up the conviction rates to show that this is an important crime. Stores, particularly larger stores, need to do more to ensure that where they do employ security guards, they are security guards with a purpose who do not just stand there and say, “I cannot intervene”, which is completely and utterly useless.
Another branch in my constituency does not employ security guards at all. On Friday evenings, as I have recently found out, two young women are in charge of that store. People are coming in, potentially aggressive or drunk or to commit crimes. Retailers, particularly the bigger ones, need to take this issue seriously and step up to the mark if they want to protect their customers and their goods, and particularly if they want to protect their staff. I hope that the Co-op has heard that, because I have invited it to come down urgently to my constituency to talk about the problem that we have with stores in the area. It is sending out entirely the wrong message and creating a bigger problem for the future.
I am grateful for the opportunity to hijack and leap on this debate, because it is an important subject that is not treated with the importance that it needs.

Chris Philp: I am, as always, grateful to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) for securing this important debate. It is of course relevant to my ministerial responsibilities, but I should add that my first formal paid employment at the age of about 16 was in a supermarket in south London, close to my constituency, so I greatly sympathise with the issues raised. Years later, I ran a business that supplied convenience stores up and down the country, so it is a topic close to my heart.
I would like to start by saying clearly that any form of retail crime is completely unacceptable. I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of emphasising that this is a serious form of crime and that it should not, at any point, be dismissed or treated by the police or anyone else as somehow minor or to be disregarded. That is important because shop workers often get assaulted, which is serious for them. The hon. Member pointed out the enormous financial losses that result from widespread shoplifting and, if it is left unchecked, it simply escalates. What might start off as pilfering or what some would wrongly describe as low-level theft can escalate into something much more serious and widespread.
We have seen that elsewhere in the world—I think in particular about San Francisco, as well as other American cities—where both the police and store security guards appear not to intervene and, as a consequence, stores are raided and stolen from on a large scale multiple times a day. In San Francisco, a number of shops have had to close down completely because shoplifting has become so rampant and out of control. For all those reasons, it needs to be taken extremely seriously. There is a very compelling case for doing that.
The Government do take it seriously—I certainly do, as does the Home Secretary. In fact, just a couple of days ago—I think it was on Monday—I chaired a  meeting of the national retail crime steering group, bringing together the retail industry and law enforcement to sharpen our response to retail crime. It was attended by, among others, the British Retail Consortium, the Association of Convenience Stores and representatives of all kinds of retailers, as well as police and crime commissioners and various people from the policing family. We discussed a number of things, one of which was the impact of section 156 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which made assaulting a public-facing worker—particularly retail workers, but also others, such as bus drivers—a statutory aggravating factor. That, again, is designed to send a signal to the public as well as to the police and the judiciary that such crimes are taken seriously. During that meeting, we considered an article that appeared over the weekend in The Times by Dame Sharon White, the chair of John Lewis, raising concerns about this matter. We talked about the need for a proper police response at all times when shoplifting occurs.
The hon. Member mentioned resources. Of course, we now have more police officers across England and Wales than at any point in history—149,572 police officers, which is about 3,500 more than the previous peak in 2010—so there are extra resources, certainly in England and Wales. I take his point about Northern Ireland being a bit different. With all those officers in place, I do expect, as Policing Minister, an appropriate response, by which I mean that proper investigations should occur, as do the public and Members of this House.
There is often CCTV footage of somebody shoplifting. We now have extremely advanced and capable means of matching images taken on CCTV cameras against the records held on the police national database, and there is often a match. That is what I would expect to happen in every case. Where there is a lead, I would expect it to be followed up.
Similarly, I would expect an appropriate police response where an incident is unfolding of the kind that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) mentioned. I would expect the police to attend. From what I have seen in the video he refers to, it was not handled appropriately. Where an incident is unfolding, the police should respond. If the police need to attend to gather evidence that requires their physical attendance, they should do that.
Obviously, the police are operationally independent and I do not have the power to direct them, nor should I. However, I will convene a further meeting with the National Police Chiefs’ Council leads in this area, together with the British Retail Consortium, the Association of Convenience Stores and others, to make sure that there is an appropriate response at all times, that those crimes are investigated and prevented, and that there is appropriate prosecutorial follow-up.
Under section 176 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, where the shoplifting relates to goods under £200 in value and the defendant pleads guilty and does not want the case heard in a Crown court, it is treated as summary only. In fact, the police can charge it. That change was made, but there was categorically no requirement set out in legislation or guidance that offences where the amount of goods stolen is under £200 should in any way be ignored. They should certainly not be ignored.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I welcome the Minister’s point, which needs to be driven home to local police services and, importantly, to shop owners. On the group that he set up and is taking advice from, it is brilliant that progress will be made, but I encourage him to invite the British Independent Retailers Association and the Association of Convenience Stores to that group, so that smaller businesses can have their voice heard.

Chris Philp: The Association of Convenience Stores was at the meeting on Monday and will come to the subsequent meeting that I referred to. I will be happy to invite the other group that the hon. Gentleman referred to. Officials are listening and will make sure that the invitation is extended.
To repeat the point on goods that are stolen with a value under £200, the previous Policing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), wrote to all chief constables and police and crime commissioners to make it clear that section 176 does not restrain the police’s ability to arrest and prosecute. Further to that, in 2020 the National Business Crime Centre surveyed police forces in England and Wales, asking if they had a policy of not responding to shoplifting where goods are worth less than £200. No police force said that it had any such policy, which is reassuring. However, I want to make sure that the practice on the ground is appropriate. I was concerned by the points raised by Dame Sharon White, the chair of John Lewis, in her article in The Times over the weekend, saying that she felt the police response was not adequate. That is why I will have further discussions with the relevant NPCC leads and others in the near future.
I would like to address the short but excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. I have touched on the incident he mentioned, but he also made a point about security guards, and he is right to say that even though they are not warranted police officers, security guards have the right, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, to physically intervene when there is no police constable on the scene and a crime is being committed. They can make a citizen’s arrest, as any member of the public can.
Interestingly, I was refreshing my memory about section 176 of the 2014 Act, which I mentioned. When the crime of stealing goods worth less than £200 was made summary-only, it would have fallen outside the scope of offences where a member of the public, including a security guard, can make a citizen’s arrest, were it not for an express provision in section 176 that makes it clear that shoplifting goods under the value of £200 does still trigger the right to make a citizen’s arrest under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Back in 2014—I was not a Member of Parliament then, but my hon. Friend was—Parliament legislated expressly to allow that power of citizen’s arrest to apply specifically to shoplifting when the goods are worth less than £200.
Of course we need to be conscious of the safety of security guards, but I would urge them to intervene when they see someone shoplifting. If they do not, that simply allows shoplifting to go unchecked, and people will be almost encouraged to shoplift if they think it will go unpunished. I have seen plenty of video footage from the United States in which store security guards do not intervene—perhaps because people in the United  States often have guns, which, thankfully, is not normally the case here—and the problem escalates out of control. I agree with my hon. Friend that security guards should intervene appropriately, unless they really believe that their safety will be at risk, because that acts as a deterrent. As I have said, they have the legal powers to do so.
There are also some very good technical solutions that retailers can adopt to be proactive. One company that works in a number of retail stores, including the Co-op in parts of the south of England—it is a private sector company, so I will not name it—uses a live facial recognition system that hooks into the CCTV cameras. It is connected to a database containing images of known prolific shoplifters. When one of them walks into the store, an alert is triggered so the staff know that a prolific shoplifter has just walked in. The company recommends that a staff member should approach the shoplifter and do nothing more than say, politely, “Excuse me, sir, can I help?” The mere act of doing that often acts as a deterrent, and the shoplifter simply leaves, knowing that he or she is being observed.
The company has shown me data revealing that the number of assaults against retail stores deploying the system has dropped by about 20%, while in the stores that have not deployed it the number rose. In the stores where it has not been deployed, there has been a significant rise in the incidence of theft—part of the wider increase that we have discussed—whereas in those that have deployed it, there has been a very slight decline. The system was recently scrutinised by the Information Commissioner’s Office for the usual data protection and privacy reasons, and, following lengthy consideration, the company is being allowed to proceed. I think that systems of that kind can be extremely helpful.
I do not want to try the House’s patience by going on for too much longer. Let me conclude by reiterating my agreement with the view of the hon. Member for North Antrim that this is a serious form of crime that causes enormous financial loss, leads to many assaults on hard-working staff members and, if it goes unchecked, escalates to a point at which widespread disorder permeates society. For all those reasons, I think that we need to do more, and I commit myself to doing that through the meetings to which I have referred. I thank the hon. Member again for drawing the matter to the House’s attention.

Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think a point of order is the only way in which I can say this. I want to thank the Minister, because his was one of the most helpful responses I have ever received during an Adjournment debate. I just wanted to put that on the record.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It was rather removed from the actual Standing Orders, but there we are; I am sure that the Minister appreciated the hon. Gentleman’s words.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.